X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant was convicted of two separate counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and the jury assessed punishment at 15 years’ confinement on each count. He filed a motion for new trial, but did not specifically request a hearing on the motion. The motion was overruled by operation of law. On direct appeal the appellant complained that the trial court did not, but should have, held a hearing on his motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the appellant was not entitled to a hearing in the absence of a request for one. HOLDING:The court affirms the judgment of the court of appeals. To present a motion in the context of a motion for new trial, the defendant must give the trial court actual notice that he timely filed a motion for new trial and requests a hearing on the motion for new trial. The rationale for this requirement is the same as that which supports preservation of error generally: A trial court should not be reversed on a matter that was not brought to the trial court’s attention. Presenting the motion, along with a request for a hearing, is required to let the court know that the defendant wants the trial court to act on the motion and whether the defendant would like a hearing on the motion. Presenting the motion for new trial and the request for a hearing is akin to objecting to the erroneous admission of evidence. Absent a proper objection that alerts the trial court to the erroneous admission, the error has not been preserved for appellate review. Thus, a reviewing court does not reach the question of whether a trial court abused its discretion in failing to hold a hearing if no request for a hearing was presented to it. The court cannot conclude that the appellant’s desire for a hearing was brought to the attention of the trial court. Nowhere in the motion did the appellant request a hearing. The order attached to the motion, labeled “Order – Time to Present,” included the options of having a hearing or ruling on the motion without a hearing, which, without a more specific request, left to the trial court’s discretion whether a hearing should be held. The court holds that, in this case, the appellant did not adequately advise the trial court of his desire to have a hearing. OPINION:Price, J., delivered the court’s opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.