James L. Howard v. State, 05-15-00386-CR

James L. Howard was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 45 years; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
On June 6, 2014, Howard filed a post-conviction motion for DNA testing.
The trial court denied the motion by written order signed November 18, 2014, and the order stated it was effective ten days after signing (November 28, 2014).
Under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal from that order was therefore due no later than December 29, 2014.
Howard filed a pro se notice of appeal on March 3, 2015, which the Court of Appeals found untimely.
The Fifth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Issue	Howard's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the Court has jurisdiction because Howard timely appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing	Howard filed a pro se notice of appeal on March 3, 2015 (presumably asserting appellate rights)	The notice was untimely because the order became effective Nov. 28, 2014, making the appeal deadline Dec. 29, 2014	Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction due to untimely notice

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (jurisdiction concerns a court's power to hear a case and must be properly invoked)
Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appeal must be authorized by law and timely filed to invoke appellate jurisdiction)
Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standard that appeals must be authorized by law)
Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (rules governing timeliness of criminal appeals)
State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (discussing when judgments or orders become effective for appeal deadlines)