Court Opinion

ID: 9652746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:31:18.225556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:53.839132
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On motion for rehearing, appellant, Charles Otis Herring, argues that we *856should have applied the rule stated in Billie v. State, 605 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) in determining whether the trial court properly denied his motion for continuance. Appellant, Charles Otis Herring, states in his motion for continuance that he requested a transcript of the pretrial hearing on August 28, 1987. However, we are unable to locate any written motion or request for the transcript of the pretrial hearing in the record that is before us. Only the motion for continuance.
The rule on appeal is that in order to complain of a trial court’s ruling, the record must show that such request or motion was made in writing and included in our transcript. The record must further show the trial court’s ruling on such motion in order for us to determine if reversible error was present as contended.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.