Robert Lee Martin v. State, 03-14-00499-CR

Convicted appellant Martin was sentenced to life in prison for aggravated sexual assault in 2001.
Appellant sought DNA testing under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.01 and later sought related data-family and database testing.
Trial court granted some DNA testing motions and issued findings in 2010 favorable to testing; later orders denied further testing requests.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on August 15, 2014, but the trial court had not certified the right to appeal.
State filed a motion to dismiss asserting lack of appealability of an order denying appointed counsel under Rule 25.2(a)(2) and lack of certification under Rule 25.2(d).
Appellate court is urged to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and improper appellate review under Rule 25.2(d).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the appealable scope limited by Rule 25.2(a)(2)?	State: order denying appointed counsel is not appealable.	Martin: order falls within Article 64 review and is appealable.	No; the order denying counsel is not an appealable order under Rule 25.2(a)(2).
Must the record show certification of the defendant's right to appeal under Rule 25.2(d)?	State: certification missing would foreclose review.	Martin: right to appeal exists despite certification issues.	Yes; lack of trial court certification requires dismissal of the appeal.

Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (denial of appointed counsel not an appealable order under Rule 25.2(a)(2))
Swearingen v. State, 189 S.W.3d 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (an order denying DNA testing is appealable under Rule 25.2(a)(2))
Wolfe v. State, 120 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (context on appeals under Article 64 proceedings)