# Reyes v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 3, 1993 · 849 S.W.2d 812

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673320

## Case

- **Full name:** Joe REYES, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 3, 1993
- **Citations:** 849 S.W.2d 812; 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 25; 1993 WL 19961
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Meyers
- **Judges:** Baird, McCormick, Campbell, Meyers
- **Cited by:** 669 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Bouldin v. State, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 8691 (2002).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673320

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- holding in a criminal case that defendant is entitled to a hearing on motion for new trial when motion for new trial Areflect[s] that reasonable grounds exist for holding that@ motion for new trial could be granted

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673320. Public record. Not legal advice.