 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Redmond v. State11/8/2000
ting a motion for new trial is mandatory, when the motion must be filed, how and when it may be amended, the type of evidence permitted in the hearing, when and how the court rules on the motion, and the effect of the ruling on the motion. Tex. R. App. P. 21. Conspicuously absent from Rule 21 are any requirements for the form of the motion. Thus, Redmond's argument that the sole requirements are those contained in the rule must fail.
The judicially imposed requirement of an affidavit or verification as a prerequisite for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial has existed throughout the various incarnations of the governing precept. Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)(1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. App.1993)(1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)(1981 Code of Criminal Procedure); Hicks v. State, 75 Tex. Crim. 461, 171 S.W. 755, 763 (1914)(opinion on rehearing)(1911 Code of Criminal Procedure); Mallet v. State, 9 S.W.3d 856, 865 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2000, no pet.)(1997 Rules of Appellate Procedure). See also Callahan v. State, 937 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1996, no pet.); Mendoza v. State, 935 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Tex. App.--Waco 1996, no pet.); Sandoval v. State, 929 S.W.2d 34 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1996, pet. ref'd); DeGay v. State, 923 S.W.2d 847 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1996, pet. ref'd).
Redmond's motions for new trial were not supported by affidavits. The "supplemental" affidavits filed more than 30 days after sentencing were filed for the purpose of amending the motions for new trial to correct the defects, and were governed by the time constraints of Rule 21.4(b). Because the motions for new trial were not supported by affidavits, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motions. Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d at 665.
Redmond argues in the alternative that she established ineffective assistance of counsel without reference to matters extraneous to the record. This argument fails for the reasons discussed in our consideration of issue six. Issues eight through ten are overruled. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Submitted on October 12, 2000
Publish
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|