1 The m otions are e ntitled as follows : 1) “Mot ion Rul e 22. Ar rest ofJudgment,” 2) “Moti on Request

Appoint ed Counsel, Rule 6. 4(B), ” 3) “ Motion Formal Bil ls of Excepti on Rule 33. 2,” 4) “Mot i on R ule 32 .2 Supplemental Stat ements” (t his moti on request s that appel lant

be al lowed t o correct stat ements m ade in t he docketi ng state m ent filed with th is court), 5) “Motion Rule 69.Ac tion of Court on Petition for Discretionary Review an d a fte r G ra ntin g R ev iew ,” 6 ) “M otio n N ew T ria l on Ru le 44.2 Reversibl e Error in a Criminal Case (a) Consti tut ional Error ,” and 7) ” Motion New Trial Arti cle 40. 001 on Ma teri al Ev idence, Rule 22. 6 Granti ng Ru le 31.1 , Ru le 31.2 , Ru le 296 Find ing of facts , Ru le 51.2 Jud gm ent o f Ac quittal.” NO. 07-03-0492-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D JANUARY

27, 2004

______________________________ MICH AEL GLE N SCO TT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 181 ST DISTRIC T COURT O F POTT ER COUNTY; NO. W -30,473-01-B; HON. SAMUEL KISER, PRESI DING

_______________________________ Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPB ELL, JJ. Appellant, Michael Glen Scott ( Scott), filed w ith this cour t, on November

20, 2003, a notice of appeal wherein he seeks to appeal his conviction based on f indings from “DNA testing,”among other things. Also before us a re several other motions he filed. 1 We dismiss for w

ant of jurisdic

tion and deny all motions fil ed in this cau se as moot.2

Though diffic u lt to understan d, Scott asks us to rever se his 1996 conv iction for aggravated assault. H e believeshe is entitl ed to rever sal becau se h e was denied opportunity

to undergo D NA testing at the time of his arrest or shortly thereafter. To the extent that he attackshis convi ction, he must fil e his notice of appeal within 30 or 90 da ys of the date the tri al court sentenced him in open court. T EX . R. A PP . P
. 26(a)
. Given that he was sentenced in 1996 and his notice of appe al was not filed until November of 2003, his atte mpt to ap pea l is un time ly. Thus, we have no jurisdi ction over the cause. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 96). To the extent that his notice and various motionscan be constru ed as a reques t for DNA testing under

art. 64.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, we again find that we have no jurisdiction over the matter. That statu te provides a convict ed person th e opportunity

to request forensic DNA testing. However, the request must be presented to the “convicting court.” T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 64.01 (Vernon Supp. 2004). This appellate court wa s and is not theconvicti ng court. Scott w as tried and conv icted in the 181 stJudicial District Courtfor Potter Count y. More over, the r

ecord before us co ntains no order illustra ting that the 181 stJudicial Distric t Court denied him any rel ief under art. 64. 01 of the Code of Cri minal Procedure. So, there is no final order implicating that articl e that vests us with jurisdiction over the matter. Fina lly, to the extent

that the various documentsScott has filed maybe construed as an applicatio n for writ of habeas corpusunder art. 1 1.07 of the Code of Cri minal Procedure, we are ag ain withou t jurisdi ction over the ma tter. Only the Tex as Court of Criminal Appeals may g rant relief under that articl e. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art.3

11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2004) (s tating that after final conviction in any felon y case, the writ must be made returna ble to the Court of Criminal Appe als). Acco rdin gly, we dismi ss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Furthe rmore, all of the motions filed in this cause ar e denied as moot. Brian Quinn

Justice Do not publish
.