motion without hearing in Texas

2015Therefore, Citizen’s motion for new trial did not present “reasonable grounds” upon which relief could be granted, see Wallace, 106 S.W.3d at 108 , and the trial court did not err in denying the motion without a hearing.

2008See Wallace, 106 S.W.3d at 108 .

2026The motion does not contain a request for a hearing, and while the order included an option of having a hearing or ruling on the motion without a hearing, which, “without a more specific request, left to the trial court’s discretion whether a hearing should be held.” See id. at 231 .

2015The court held that the defendant “did not adequately advise the trial court of his desire to have a hearing” because (1) “[n]owhere in the motion did the [defendant] request a hearing;” and (2) the order attached to the motion “included the options of having a hearing or ruling on the motion without a hearing, which, without a more specific request, left to the trial court’s discretion whether a hearing should be held.” Id. at 231 . 13 We concluded that Rozell and Brooks both were distinguishable from the case before us.

2010See Gardner , 306 S.W.3d at 305–06 (holding that appellant did not present motion for new trial because there was “no indication in the record that the motion for new trial was, in fact, hand-delivered to the trial judge [or] that the trial judge ever saw the motion” and that document titled “Order for a Setting” did not “suffice as a request to hold a hearing on the motion”); Rozell , 176 S.W.3d at 231 (holding record did not show the trial court had actual notice of request for hearing when proposed order included “options of having a hearing or ruling on the motion without a hearing”); Burr

2010See Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 305–06 (holding that appellant did not present motion for new trial because there was “no indication in the record that the motion for new trial was, in fact, hand-delivered to the trial judge [or] that the trial judge ever saw the motion” and that document titled “Order for a Setting” did not “suffice as a request to hold a hearing on the motion”); Rozell, 176 S.W.3d at 231 (holding record did not show the trial court had actual notice of request for hearing when proposed order included “options of having a hearing or ruling on the motion without a hearing”); Burrus

2010See Gardner , 306 S.W.3d at 305–06 (holding that appellant did not present motion for new trial because there was “no indication in the record that the motion for new trial was, in fact, hand-delivered to the trial judge [or] that the trial judge ever saw the motion” and that document titled “Order for a Setting” did not “suffice as a request to hold a hearing on the motion”); Rozell , 176 S.W.3d at 231 (holding record did not show the trial court had actual notice of request for hearing when proposed order included “options of having a hearing or ruling on the motion without a hearing”); Burr

2010See Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 305–06 (holding that appellant did not present motion for new trial because there was “no indication in the record that the motion for new trial was, in fact, hand-delivered to the trial judge [or] that the trial judge ever saw the motion” and that document titled “Order for a Setting” did not “suffice as a request to hold a hearing on the motion”); Rozell, 176 S.W.3d at 231 (holding record did not show the trial court had actual notice of request for hearing when proposed order included “options of having a hearing or ruling on the motion without a hearing”); Burrus

2010See Gardner , 306 S.W.3d at 305–06 (holding that appellant did not present motion for new trial because there was “no indication in the record that the motion for new trial was, in fact, hand-delivered to the trial judge [or] that the trial judge ever saw the motion” and that document titled “Order for a Setting” did not “suffice as a request to hold a hearing on the motion”); Rozell , 176 S.W.3d at 231 (holding record did not show the trial court had actual notice of request for hearing when proposed order included “options of having a hearing or ruling on the motion without a hearing”); Burr

2010See Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 305–06 (holding that appellant did not present motion for new trial because there was “no indication in the record that the motion for new trial was, in fact, hand-delivered to the trial judge [or] that the trial judge ever saw the motion” and that document titled “Order for a Setting” did not “suffice as a request to hold a hearing on the motion”); Rozell, 176 S.W.3d at 231 (holding record did not show the trial court had actual notice of request for hearing when proposed order included “options of having a hearing or ruling on the motion without a hearing”); Burrus

2026Mandamus will not issue where there is “a clear and adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

2022See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S. Ct. 893, 902 (1976) (recognizing that due process requires “the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’” (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S. Ct. 1187, 1191 (1965))); see also Univ. of Tex. Med.

2022See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S. Ct. 893, 902 (1976) (recognizing that due process requires “the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’” (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S. Ct. 1187, 1191 (1965))); see also Univ. of Tex. Med.

2022See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S. Ct. 893, 902 (1976) (recognizing that due process requires “the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’” (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S. Ct. 1187, 1191 (1965))); see also Univ. of Tex. Med.

2022See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S. Ct. 893, 902 (1976) (recognizing that due process requires “the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’” (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S. Ct. 1187, 1191 (1965))); see also Univ. of Tex. Med.

2015See Shields v. State, 379 S.W.3d 368, 370 (Tex. App.—Waco 2012, no pet.) (holding convicting court’s post-judgment ruling on motion to return property was final judgment over which appellate court possessed jurisdiction).

2009P. 21.6 ("The defendant must present the motion for new trial to the trial court within 10 days of filing it, unless the trial court in its discretion permits it to be presented and heard within 75 days from the date when the court imposes or suspends sentence in open court."); see Stokes, 277 S.W.3d at 21 . [108] See Carranza, 960 S.W.2d at 79-80 . [109] See Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228, 231 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) ("The order attached to the motion [for new trial], labeled "Order-Time to Present," included the options of having a hearing or ruling on the motion without a hearing, which, witho

2009We hold that, in this case, the appellant did not adequately advise the trial court of his desire to have a hearing."). [110] Id. at 230 . [111] See Stokes, 277 S.W.3d at 21 ; Rozell, 176 S.W.3d at 231 . [1] TEX.R.

2009P. 21.6 ("The defendant must present the motion for new trial to the trial court within 10 days of filing it, unless the trial court in its discretion permits it to be presented and heard within 75 days from the date when the court imposes or suspends sentence in open court."); see Stokes, 277 S.W.3d at 21 . [108] See Carranza, 960 S.W.2d at 79-80 . [109] See Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228, 231 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) ("The order attached to the motion [for new trial], labeled "Order-Time to Present," included the options of having a hearing or ruling on the motion without a hearing, which, witho

2005See id.

2003Warren cites Melendez v. Salinas for the proposition that “[w]hen a defendant voices a seemingly substantial complaint about counsel, the trial judge should make a thorough inquiry into the reasons for the defendant’s dissatisfaction.” 895 S.W.2d 714, 715 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, orig. proceeding).

1999See McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Kiser v. State, 788 S.W.2d 909, 914 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1990, pet. ref'd).

1999See McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Kiser v. State, 788 S.W.2d 909, 914 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, pet. ref'd).

1999See Hernandez v. State , 952 S.W.2d 59, 74 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997), vacated and remanded on other grounds , 957 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Tex. Crim.

1999See Hernandez v. State , 952 S.W.2d 59, 74 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997), vacated and remanded on other grounds , 957 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Tex. Crim.

1999See McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Kiser v. State, 788 S.W.2d 909, 914 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1990, pet. ref'd).

1999See McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Kiser v. State, 788 S.W.2d 909, 914 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, pet. ref'd).

1997Myers v. State, 527 S.W.2d 307,309 (Tex.Crim.App.1975).

1997See Thordson, 815 S.W.2d at 550 .

1996Courtney v. Gelber, 905 S.W.2d 33, 34 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ).

1995See Landon v. Jean-Paul Budinger, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 931, 938-39 (Tex.App.—Austin 1987, no writ). [1] Wasserman based his motion to disqualify solely on Rule 1.09. [2] Wasserman's counsel states in an affidavit that Judge Black denied the motion without hearing any evidence, a statement that is not disputed in the record.

1984See Darrington v. State, 623 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Hilton v. State, 443 S.W.2d 843 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

1982Ex Parte Ybarra, 629 S.W.2d 943, 945 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).