record to support claim in Texas

2011See Lewis v. Beaver, 588 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.)(holding that appellants could not deny attorney’s authority to act on their behalf in entering into an agreed judgment and obtain review by writ of error where there was no evidence in the record to support their claim).

2011See Lewis v. Beaver, 588 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.)(holding that appellants could not deny attorney’s authority to act on their behalf in entering into an agreed judgment and obtain review by writ of error where there was no evidence in the record to support their claim).

2014See Linton, 275 S.W.3d at 509 (holding that trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for new trial on basis of inadequate deaf-interpretation because the "record reflect[ed] that appellant understood the proceedings well enough to assist in her own defense; moreover, whatever communication difficulties might have existed between appellant and her trial counsel were not apparent in the record"); see also Tuivailala v. State, 127 Hawai'i 242 , 277 P.3d 336 (Hawai’i App.2012) (rejecting ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to request interpreter because record refl

2014See Linton, 275 S.W.3d at 509 (holding that trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for new trial on basis of inadequate deaf-interpretation because the "record reflect[ed] that appellant understood the proceedings well enough to assist in her own defense; moreover, whatever communication difficulties might have existed between appellant and her trial counsel were not apparent in the record"); see also Tuivailala v. State, 127 Hawai'i 242 , 277 P.3d 336 (Hawai’i App.2012) (rejecting ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to request interpreter because record refl

2014See Linton, 275 S.W.3d at 509 (holding that trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for new trial on basis of inadequate deaf-interpretation because the "record reflect[ed] that appellant understood the proceedings well enough to assist in her own defense; moreover, whatever communication difficulties might have existed between appellant and her trial counsel were not apparent in the record"); see also Tuivailala v. State, 127 Hawai'i 242 , 277 P.3d 336 (Hawai’i App.2012) (rejecting ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to request interpreter because record refl

2014See Linton , 275 S.W.3d at 509 (holding that trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion for new trial on basis of inadequate deaf-interpretation because the " record reflect[ed] that appellant understood the proceedings well enough to assist in her own defense; moreover, whatever communication difficulties might have existed between appellant and her trial counsel were not apparent in the record"); see also Tuivailala v. State , 277 P.3d 336 (Hawaii App. 2012) (rejecting ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to request interpreter because record reflected that defe

2014See Linton, 275 S.W.3d at 509 (holding that trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for new trial on basis of inadequate deaf-interpretation because the "record reflect[ed] that appellant understood the proceedings well enough to assist in her own defense; moreover, whatever communication difficulties might have existed between appellant and her trial counsel were not apparent in the record"); see also Tuivailala v. State, 127 Hawai'i 242 , 277 P.3d 336 (Hawai’i App.2012) (rejecting ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to request interpreter because record refl

2014See Linton , 275 S.W.3d at 509 (holding that trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion for new trial on basis of inadequate deaf-interpretation because the " record reflect[ed] that appellant understood the proceedings well enough to assist in her own defense; moreover, whatever communication difficulties might have existed between appellant and her trial counsel were not apparent in the record"); see also Tuivailala v. State , 277 P.3d 336 (Hawaii App. 2012) (rejecting ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to request interpreter because record reflected that defe

2014See Linton, 275 S.W.3d at 509 (holding that trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for new trial on basis of inadequate deaf-interpretation because the "record reflect[ed] that appellant understood the proceedings well enough to assist in her own defense; moreover, whatever communication difficulties might have existed between appellant and her trial counsel were not apparent in the record"); see also Tuivailala v. State, 127 Hawai'i 242 , 277 P.3d 336 (Hawai’i App.2012) (rejecting ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to request interpreter because record refl

2014See Linton , 275 S.W.3d at 509 (holding that trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion for new trial on basis of inadequate deaf-interpretation because the " record reflect[ed] that appellant understood the proceedings well enough to assist in her own defense; moreover, whatever communication difficulties might have existed between appellant and her trial counsel were not apparent in the record"); see also Tuivailala v. State , 277 P.3d 336 (Hawaii App. 2012) (rejecting ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to request interpreter because record reflected that defe

2011In Young, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that “while a defendant is not required to request the trial court make a comparison analysis of the reasons given for striking various venirepersons in order to preserve the issue for an appellate determination, such defendant is limited to the evidence in the record to support such analysis.” Cornish v. State, 848 S.W.2d 144, 145 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (en banc) (interpreting Young, 826 S.W.2d at 144 ).

2011In Young, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that "while a defendant is not required to request the trial court make a comparison analysis of the reasons given for striking various venirepersons in order to preserve the issue for an appellate determination, such defendant is limited to the evidence in the record to support such analysis." Cornish v. State, 848 S.W.2d 144, 145 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (en banc) (interpreting Young, 826 S.W.2d at 144 ).

2009See McDonald , 64 S.W.3d at 89 (assertions of fact in appellate brief do not constitute evidence on appeal).

2009See McDonald, 64 S.W.3d at 89 (assertions of fact in appellate brief do not constitute evidence on appeal).

2007In re Niland, 825 F.2d 801, 809 (5th Cir.1987) (quoting Lincoln v. Bennett, 138 Tex. 56, 59 , 156 S.W.2d 504, 505 (Tex.1941)). .

2007Accordingly, Cadle must rely solely on the Ortizes' testimony and the documents in the record to support its claim of estoppel. [14] In re Niland, 825 F.2d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Lincoln v. Bennett, 138 Tex. 56, 59 , 156 S.W.2d 504, 505 (Tex.1941)). [15] Brown v. Bank of Galveston, Nat'l Ass'n, 963 S.W.2d 511, 515 (Tex.1998). [16] McKinzie, 869 S.W.2d at 595 .

2007Accordingly, Cadle must rely solely on the Ortizes' testimony and the documents in the record to support its claim of estoppel. [14] In re Niland, 825 F.2d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Lincoln v. Bennett, 138 Tex. 56, 59 , 156 S.W.2d 504, 505 (Tex.1941)). [15] Brown v. Bank of Galveston, Nat'l Ass'n, 963 S.W.2d 511, 515 (Tex.1998). [16] McKinzie, 869 S.W.2d at 595 .

2007Accordingly, Cadle must rely solely on the Ortizes' testimony and the documents in the record to support its claim of estoppel. [14] In re Niland, 825 F.2d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Lincoln v. Bennett, 138 Tex. 56, 59 , 156 S.W.2d 504, 505 (Tex.1941)). [15] Brown v. Bank of Galveston, Nat'l Ass'n, 963 S.W.2d 511, 515 (Tex.1998). [16] McKinzie, 869 S.W.2d at 595 .

2004These included the following: that the child has a meaningful relationship with Comanche extended family members and that she is entitled to substantial rights and valuable benefits as a member of the Comanche Nation. 6 While Ivy v. Carrell requires a motion for new trial’s meritorious defense to be accompanied by affidavit or other supporting evidence, see 407 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Tex.1966), and the Comanche Nation filed only its motion and supporting brief, we disagree with the dissent that there is no evidence in the record to support this defense, when the movant has asked the court to conside

2004These included the following: that the child has a meaningful relationship with Comanche extended family members and that she is entitled to substantial rights and valuable benefits as a member of the Comanche Nation. (6) While Ivy v. Carrell requires a motion for new trial's meritorious defense to be accompanied by affidavit or other supporting evidence, see 407 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Tex. 1966), and the Comanche Nation filed only its motion and supporting brief, we disagree with the dissent that there is no evidence in the record to support this defense, when the movant has asked the court to cons

1993See Miller v. State, 755 S.W.2d 211, 216 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988), rev’d on other grounds, 815 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

1993See Miller v. State, 755 S.W.2d 211, 216 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1988), reversed on other grounds, 815 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

1993See Miller v. State, 755 S.W.2d 211, 216 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988), rev’d on other grounds, 815 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

1993See Miller v. State, 755 S.W.2d 211, 216 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1988), reversed on other grounds, 815 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

2023See McKinney, 179 S.W.3d at 571 .

2023See McKinney, 179 S.W.3d at 571 .

2021See Freeman v. State, 125 S.W.3d 505 , 506–07 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 837 (Tex. Crim.

2014Therefore, even if Ross did make it clear to the trial court that he wished to relitigate the legality of the search of his bedroom, we hold Ross failed to preserve error on the basis of the Confrontation Clause. 3 See Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 179 (“Because [the appellant] ‘did not clearly articulate’ that the Confrontation Clause demanded admission of the evidence, the trial judge ‘never had the opportunity to rule upon’ [that] rationale.”) (quoting Clark v. State, 881 S.W.2d 682, 694 (Tex. Crim.

2014Therefore, even if Ross did make it clear to the trial court that he wished to relitigate the legality of the search of his bedroom, we hold Ross failed to preserve error on the basis of the Confrontation Clause. 3 See Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 179 (“Because [the appellant] ‘did not clearly articulate’ that the Confrontation Clause demanded admission of the evidence, the trial judge ‘never had the opportunity to rule upon’ [that] rationale.”) (quoting Clark v. State, 881 S.W.2d 682, 694 (Tex. Crim.

2007Accordingly, Cadle must rely solely on the Ortizes' testimony and the documents in the record to support its claim of estoppel. [14] In re Niland, 825 F.2d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Lincoln v. Bennett, 138 Tex. 56, 59 , 156 S.W.2d 504, 505 (Tex.1941)). [15] Brown v. Bank of Galveston, Nat'l Ass'n, 963 S.W.2d 511, 515 (Tex.1998). [16] McKinzie, 869 S.W.2d at 595 .