stating that Court has required “ ‘as a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing1 and ‘as a matter of pleading,’ [that] motions for new trial be supported by affidavit, either of the accused or someone else specifically showing the truth of the grounds of attack”
How later courts described this case
- stating that Court has required “ ‘as a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing1 and ‘as a matter of pleading,’ [that] motions for new trial be supported by affidavit, either of the accused or someone else specifically showing the truth of the grounds of attack”
- explaining that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel can be brought in a motion for new trial and that a trial court abuses its discretion in failing to hold a hearing on a motion for new trial that raises matters not determinable from the record
- holding that “when an accused presents a motion for new trial raising matters not determinable from the record, upon which the accused could be entitled to relief, the trial judge abuses his discretion in failing to hold a hearing.”
- holding in a criminal case that defendant is entitled to a hearing on motion for new trial when motion for new trial “reflect[s] that reasonable grounds exist for holding that” motion for new trial could be granted
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by Bouldin v. State, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 8691 (2002)
This fine of cases predates the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in Reyes that is cited above, and at least one court has questioned the continued validity of the line of cases where a motion for new trial filed after a revocation proceeding raises matters not determinable from the record.
The opinion
CAMPBELL and MEYERS, JJ.,
concur in the result only, believing that ineffective assistance of counsel is a specific ground for a new trial pursuant to Tex.R.App.Pro. Rule 30(b)(1), i.e., the appellant “has been denied counsel.” Thus, they find it unnecessary to reach the question of whether a trial judge may consider matters not illuminated in Rule 30.
WHITE, J., concurs in the result.