This is an appeal from two orders, both signed by the trial court on August 20, 2021, denying Jerry Randal Rangel’s motions for post-conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rangel is appearing pro se in this appeal. ^[1] *2 The appellant’s brief is now overdue in this appeal. The Clerk of the Court’s March 10, 2022 letter to Rangel states:

Our records indicate that the appellant’s brief was due on or before February 10, 2022. To date, no brief has been filed.

You will notice that the trial court has been copied with this letter as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(b)(2). Presumably, the purpose of notifying the trial court is to allow intervention by the trial court before the Court has to formally abate the proceeding for a hearing.

Unless a brief or satisfactory response is received within 14 days, this Court must abate the appeal and order the trial court to immediately conduct a hearing pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(b)(2) & (3).

Justice Smith has recused himself from participation in this proceeding.

Because the appellant’s brief was not filed within 14 days, we abate this appeal to the trial court to conduct any necessary hearings within 21 days of the date of this Order in accordance with Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3). T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(b)(2), (3).

The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records required by the rule, if any, are ordered to be filed within 35 days of the date of this Order. See id.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray and

Justice Johnson

Order issued and filed April 20, 2022

RWR

Rangel v. State Page 2

[1] On January 20, 2022, Rangel filed a “Motion to Abate Appeal for Appointment of Counsel.” We denied the motion in an order that was issued on January 31, 2022. In the order, we explained that a convicted person has only a limited, statutory right to appointed counsel during a Chapter 64 proceeding. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 64.01(c); Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The trial court had already denied Rangel’s request for appointment of counsel, and we saw no reason to believe that the trial court would view the issue of Rangel’s entitlement to counsel any differently at that time. Furthermore, we concluded that Rangel had not established to us his entitlement to the appointment of appellate counsel in this appeal.