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, P edersen, III, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Whitehill Appellant Marcell Lakeist Williams pled guilty to burglary of a habitation and pled true to one enhancement pa ragraph. A jury found him guilt y and assessed punishment at seventy years in prison. On appeal, appellant ra ises one issue complaining that the trial court erred by denying the oral cont inuance 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. A NALYSIS Appellant’s brief cites a sworn continuance motion he filed abo ut four months before trial began, but that moti on didn’t preserve the error h e asserts on appeal. First, the record contains no express ruling on appellant’s swo rn motion, and, to the extent a ruling can be implied from the record, it appea rs the trial court granted the motion. Specifically, appe llant’s January 19, 2018 motion recited that (i) the case was set for trial on Janua ry 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 com plaint wasn’t raised in his written motion. Rather, on appeal he argues that the trial court erroneously de nied an oral continuance motion that his lawyer made off the record on the f irst day of trial during a break in voir dire and then rep eated on the record on the sec ond day of trial. Appellant’s lawyer explained that, during lunch on the first da y 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 d enied appellant’s oral motion, noting that the blood’s presence was indicated in the probable cause affidavit. Appell ant’s appellate argument repeats his oral conti nuance motion’s substance. Beca use his appellate argument doesn’t comport with his written, sworn continuance mo tion, 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 obje ction made at trial.”). Finally, under settled law, appell ant’s unsworn oral continuanc e motion itself did not preserve error. See Blackshear v. State , 385 S.W.3d 589, 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“[A]n unsworn oral [c ontinuance] motion preserves n othing for appeal.”); see also T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC . art. 29.08 (all continuance motions must be sworn).
II. C ONCLUSION 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 o f this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered October 19, 2020.