order regarding post-conviction DNA testing in any case in which the death penalty is not imposed. Id. art. 64.05; Reger v. State, 222 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref'd). Hiatt states police reports reflect D.H. wiped his mouth with a tissue after allegedly performing oral sex on Hiatt to the point of ejaculation. He claims the tissue will rebut the allegations of sexual abuse because it will not contain any of his DNA. Although the record shows Hiatt filed his motion for DNA testing in conjunction with his second motion for new trial, the trial court has yet to rule on Hiatt’s request for DNA testing. Thus, the trial court has not made an appealable finding as to the DNA issue. Cf. Cravin v. State, 95 S.W.3d 506, 508 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>); In re Johnston, 79 S.W.3d 195, 198
recognizing ruling on motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo on appeal holding an interlocutory appeal is allowed from the trial courts written order denying a motion to dismiss under the tcpa holding that a ground for relief not pled in a motion for postconviction relief is waived and cannot be raised on appeal holding a written order is required for an appeal from a convicting courts ruling on a postconviction motion for dna testing recognizing that an order for dna testing could cause irreparable harm because the test is intrusive and any error in improperly ordering genetic testing cannot be remedied on appeal after the testing is done and the results are released