This Court and others have held that an appellate court may review on the record alone the denial of a motion for DNA testing and the corresponding motion for court-appointed counsel. See, e.g., Tatum v. State, No. 14-18-00157-CR, 2019 WL 758391, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 21, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re King, No. 03-17-00484-CR, 2018 WL 3909949, at *2 n.1 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug. 16, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Ates v. State, No. 03-15-00307-CR, 2016 WL 3361173, at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin June 8, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)); Ortiz v. State, No. 04-15-00761-CR, 2017 WL 2791326, at *1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio June 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Aekins v. State, No. 07-15-00139-CR, 2016 WL 2609597, at *2-3 (Tex. App.-Amarillo May 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Weekley v. State, No. 05-15-00037-CR, 2015 WL 4880414, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Aug. 14, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes post-conviction forensic DNA testing only if certain statutory requirements are met.
As we warned Appellant we would do if her amended brief did not comply with the Rules and our order, we set this appeal at issue on the record alone, and we will review the record solely for fundamental error. See Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 687-88 & n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Ortiz v. State, No. 04-15-00761-CR, 2017 WL 2791326, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). /s/_________
Further, we see no reason, and King has not offered one, why the trial court would reconsider its previous determination and now conclude that the statutory criteria for the appointment of counsel has been satisfied. See Aekins v. State, No. 07-15-00139-CR, 2015 WL 6082312, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 15, 2015, order) (per curiam) (denying request to remand for appointment of counsel); see also Ortiz v. State, No. 04-15-00761-CR, 2017 WL 2791326, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same). Therefore, we decline to remand this case for the appointment of counsel and deny King's motion to abate.