Court Opinion

ID: 9770755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:20:50.381036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:20.488415
License: Public Domain

OVERSTREET, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the result of the majority opinion, but disagree with the rationale serving as the basis of the decision. The majority finds the term “present” as used in Rule 31(c)(1) as “somewhat ambiguous” and uses that finding to support its reliance on V.T.C.A. Gov’t Code §§ 311.023(1), 311.023(4), and 311.023(5) in reaching its conclusion. Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d at 78-79. Ambiguous means inexplicable, doubtful or uncertain, capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways.1 Based on the common meaning of ambiguous, I must disagree that “present” is ambiguous. Instead, I look to the plain meaning of the term “present” along with the few cases which have addressed the subject in resolving the issue in this case.
The verb tense of present means 1) to bring or introduce into the presence of someone; 2) to make a gift to; 3) to give or bestow formally, 4) to lay (as a charge) before a court as an object of inquiry, 5) to nominate to a benefice, 6) to offer to view: show.2 [emphasis added]. From the definition, present has a plain and common meaning — to bring forth by introducing, bestowing,. or showing. The acts of introducing, bestowing or showing are all acts which require a physical act by the presenter and an implied act of receipt by the presentee. Based on this common meaning, it is difficult for me to embrace the majority’s position that the term is ambiguous.
Now for an examination of the cases on the subject. In Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), this Court held that mere *81filing was insufficient to constitute presentment. In Green v. State, 754 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), this Court held that a handwritten notation on the proposed order indicating that the motion had been presented to the judge on a specific date was sufficient. The Court further stated that this act put “the trial court on notice that the appellant desired a hearing so that he could be afforded the opportunity to present evidence in support of his motion for new trial.” Green, 754 S.W.2d at 687. Based on these cases, present requires more than just filing. It is an act which communicates to the court the requesting party’s desire to have a hearing.
According to Rule 31(c)(1), the accused shall present his motion for new trial within ten days of filing it in order for it to be considered by the trial court (emphasis added). The Court has held that “ ‘[m]ust’ and ‘shall’ are synonymous and are usually mandatory when used in statutes.” Brinkley v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 472, 320 S.W.2d 855, 856 (1959). So if an accused is required to present his motion within ten days, what is the benefit or consequence of doing so? It only makes sense that the rule makers’ intended for the motion to be heard if presented within ten days of filing. It could not have been their intent to require that the motion be presented within a certain amount of time and then allow the motion to be overruled by operation of law without the slightest of consideration. To follow this rationale would be to promote a useless and meaningless provision. Furthermore, the fact that the first part of the sentence does not specifically mention a hearing does not mean that it does not follow by implication. In the second section of the rule it states that “ [a] motion for new trial need not be heard during the term it is filed.” Tex.R.App.Pro. 31(c)(2). It does not state that a motion for new trial need not be heard at all. In fact, just the opposite meaning flows from the language — a hearing is required, just not in the term in which it is filed. The interpretation that a hearing is required dates back as far as 1932 when this Court held in interpreting the predecessor to Rule 31, Code Cr. Proc.1925, art. 755, that “[t]he right to file and have heard a motion for new trial is deemed an absolute right, provided the right is asserted within the time specified.” Synagogue v. State, 122 Tex.Crim. 472, 55 S.W.2d 1052, 1053 (1932).
However in 1993 this Court modified this interpretation when it held that “... the right to a hearing on a motion for new trial is not truly an ‘absolute right.’” Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d at 815. We concluded that “... a hearing is not required when the matters raised in the motion for new trial are subject to being determined from the record.” Id. at 816. Thus, the trial court has a duty to hold a hearing on the motion for new trial when it has been timely filed and presented and asserts matters which are extrinsic to the record. To fail to do so is an abuse of discretion. Id.
Based on the aforementioned case law and the plain meaning of “present”, the following definition of present is appropriate as it relates to Rule 31. In order to “present” a motion for new trial, the movant must give the trial court actual notice that it has timely filed a motion for new trial and request a hearing on the motion within ten days of filing it. The presentment must be directed to the trial court or another authorized to act on behalf of the trial court. The presentment must result in actual notice to the trial court and may be evidenced by the judge’s signature or notation on a proposed order or by a hearing date set on the docket. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but merely suggestive as to how one may fulfill the communication requirement for presenting a motion for new trial.
In the case at bar, appellant timely filed his motion for new trial supported by affidavits claiming newly discovered evidence. The affidavits include statements by several individuals who claim appellant was not the person who killed the victim. Instead, the individuals name another man whom they claim committed the crime. Appellant wanted to pursue this matter with the trial court and requested a hearing in the fiat attached to the motion. However, the judge did not sign the order or the fiat. There was no written notation on the proposed order or fiat indicating that appellant had communi*82cated Ms desire for a hearing on the motion to the trial court or another authorized to set a hearing. Nor is there any indication that the case was set for a hearing on the court’s docket. Therefore, appellant did not meet the “present” requirement of Rule 31(e) and the motion was overruled by operation of law upon the expiration of seventy-five days pursuant to Rule 31(e).
As a reviewing court we must rely on the record in making our determination. In this case there is no evidence in the record that appellant presented the motion for new trial to the trial court. The only item appellant produces is an unsigned order and fiat, which is insufficient by itself to prove that he requested a hearing on the motion for new trial and communicated his desire to the trial court or another authorized to act. Accordingly, the court of appeals did not err in holding that appellant’s motion for new trial was not timely presented to the trial court in accordance with Rule 31(c). The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
BAIRD and MANSFIELD, JJ., join.

. See WEBSTER’S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 77 (9th ed.1989).

. See WEBSTER’S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 930 (9th ed.1989).