Court Opinion

ID: 9748876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:16:22.36961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:40.253933
License: Public Domain

MARGARET GARNER MIRABAL, Justice,
dissenting from order of abatement.
I dissent.
The majority effectively holds that a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial, even if the defendant waives an evidentiary hearing. I disagree.
Appellant filed a motion for new trial, supported by affidavit, and attached an order to be signed by the judge that read:
On this_day of_, 1995, the Court finds that a hearing in this matter is not necessary. Defendant’s Motion for New Trial is hereby granted.
Nevertheless, the trial court set the motion for new trial for hearing on July 18, 1995. On that date, appellant’s counsel appeared in court for the hearing. There is no reporter’s record of what transpired. The trial court then ruled on the motion for new trial, crossing out the “hereby granted” in appellant’s proposed order and writing in “denied.” There is no motion for reconsideration, or objection, or anything in the record before us to indicate that appellant requested to put on evidence at the hearing, or that his request was denied.
As an appellate court, we are not to presume error was committed in the trial court. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1. In the present case, because there is no indication that appellant wanted to put on evidence at the July 18 hearing, or that he was prevented from doing so, no error has been shown. See Oestrick v. State, 939 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tex.App.—Austin 1997, pet. ref'd) (no evidence that trial court ever refused to conduct a hearing); Martin v. State, 823 S.W.2d 395, 397 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1992, pet. ref'd) (failure to hold hearing not error absent appellant’s request for hearing).