AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed October 19, 2020 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01022-CR 

MARCELL LAKEIST WILLIAMS, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1642251-U 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Whitehill, Pedersen, III, and Reichek 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Appellant Marcell Lakeist Williams pled guilty to burglary of a habitation and 

pled true to one enhancement paragraph. A jury found him guilty and assessed 

punishment at seventy years in prison. On appeal, appellant raises one issue 

complaining that the trial court erred by denying the oral continuance motion his 

lawyer made on the first day of trial and renewed the next day. We overrule the 

issue and affirm because error was not preserved. 
 –2– 

I. ANALYSIS

Appellant’s brief cites a sworn continuance motion he filed about four months 

before trial began, but that motion didn’t preserve the error he asserts on appeal. 

First, the record contains no express ruling on appellant’s sworn motion, and, 

to the extent a ruling can be implied from the record, it appears the trial court granted 

the motion. Specifically, appellant’s January 19, 2018 motion recited that (i) the 

case was set for trial on January 29, 2018, and (ii) appellant’s lawyer needed a 

continuance of unspecified duration to prepare for trial based on discovery she had 

recently received and concerns about appellant’s mental health. The case wasn’t 

tried until mid-May 2018. 

Moreover, appellant’s appellate complaint wasn’t raised in his written motion. 

Rather, on appeal he argues that the trial court erroneously denied an oral 

continuance motion that his lawyer made off the record on the first day of trial during 

a break in voir dire and then repeated on the record on the second day of trial. 

Appellant’s lawyer explained that, during lunch on the first day of trial, she and the 

State learned that a drop of blood found at the crime scene had been swabbed but 

never tested. The trial judge denied appellant’s oral motion, noting that the blood’s 

presence was indicated in the probable cause affidavit. Appellant’s appellate 

argument repeats his oral continuance motion’s substance. Because his appellate 

argument doesn’t comport with his written, sworn continuance motion, it wasn’t 

preserved by that motion. See Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 
 –3– 

2012) (“The point of error on appeal must comport with the objection made at 

trial.”). 

Finally, under settled law, appellant’s unsworn oral continuance motion itself 

did not preserve error. See Blackshear v. State, 385 S.W.3d 589, 591 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2012) (“[A]n unsworn oral [continuance] motion preserves nothing for 

appeal.”); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 29.08 (all continuance motions must 

be sworn). 

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish 

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) 

191022F.U05 

 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MARCELL LAKEIST WILLIAMS, 

Appellant 

No. 05-19-01022-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1642251-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Whitehill. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Reichek participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered October 19, 2020.