In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00063-CR ___________________________ DAVID DURAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 211th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F-2003-0427-C

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2005, this court affirmed Appellant David Duran’s conviction for aggravated sexual assault, for which he was sentenced to life in prison. See Duran v. State, 163 S.W.3d 253, 255, 259 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). Since then, Appellant has filed numerous appeals in this court.

On March 12, 2025, we sent Appellant a letter stating that we had received a copy of his most recent notice of appeal, which challenges whether the trial court denied him the right to attend a court hearing. We noted that [t]he court is concerned that it lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court has not entered any appealable orders. We generally have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in a criminal case only from a judgment of conviction. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam). Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is the exclusive means for challenging a final felony conviction, and this court has no jurisdiction over matters relating to postconviction applications under Article 11.07. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding).

We gave Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal until March 24, 2025, to file a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.1 Because the trial court has not entered any appealable orders, and because this court has no jurisdiction over matters relating to postconviction applications under Appellant’s response is a nineteen-page brief, yet he asks for additional time to respond to our jurisdiction letter. We deny that request. Appellant also requests oral argument; we also deny that request.

Article 11.07, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Keene, 910 S.W.2d at 483; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: April 24, 2025

On April 10, 2025, almost a month after we sent our jurisdiction letter, Appellant filed a “Motion for Inter-luctory [sic] under Rule 42.3 or 43.2 Texas Rules of Appellate Procedures [sic].” Because there is no appealable order, much less an order that falls within the statute permitting interlocutory appeals, we deny the motion.