 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wei v. State12/19/2000
e court's evaluation throughout trial. No hearing was required for the trial court to make its determination on the issues appellant raised about an interpreter.
Finally, the motion's complaint about trial counsel's failure to call several witnesses did not merit a hearing. Although the motion complained that appellant failed to subpoena "several" of appellant's co-workers, the motion was accompanied by the affidavit of only one of appellant's co-workers. In addition, one of appellant's acquaintances and appellant's employer did testify at trial that they did not think appellant was intoxicated when he left a party before his arrest. His employer specified that he was aware of appellant's previous convictions for DWI and specifically monitored appellant to be sure he did not drive while intoxicated. Failure to subpoena one of appellant's co-workers, assuming she was available to testify and assuming trial counsel did not subpoena her, would not have amounted to ineffective assistance. Accordingly, because the motion did not raise a matter upon which relief could be granted, no hearing was necessary.
The motion for new trial did not raise a matter outside the record upon which relief could be granted. Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion without holding a hearing. We overrule appellant's sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
Page 1 2 Texas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|