testimony adduced hearing in Texas

2007Trout, 702 S.W.2d at 620 .1 Although appellant is not precluded from asserting his ineffective assistance claim in this appeal, this Court may not, under the holding in Trout as we understand it, consider the testimony adduced at the hearing in support of that claim.

2007Trout , 702 S.W.2d at 620 . (1) Although appellant is not precluded from asserting his ineffective assistance claim in this appeal, this Court may not, under the holding in Trout as we understand it, consider the testimony adduced at the hearing in support of that claim.

2015TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i RECORD REFERENCES ii ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 ISSUES PRESENTED: 2 ISSUE ONE: DID TRIAL COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE TWO: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(D) & (E) ISSUE THREE: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(N) ISSUE FOUR: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND F

2015TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i RECORD REFERENCES ii ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 ISSUES PRESENTED: 2 ISSUE ONE: DID TRIAL COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE TWO: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(D) & (E) ISSUE THREE: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(N) ISSUE FOUR: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND F

2015TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i RECORD REFERENCES ii ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 ISSUES PRESENTED: 2 ISSUE ONE: DID TRIAL COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE TWO: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(D) & (E) ISSUE THREE: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(N) ISSUE FOUR: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND F

2015TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i RECORD REFERENCES ii ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 ISSUES PRESENTED: 2 ISSUE ONE: DID TRIAL COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE TWO: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(D) & (E) ISSUE THREE: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(N) ISSUE FOUR: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND F

2015TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i RECORD REFERENCES ii ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 ISSUES PRESENTED: 2 ISSUE ONE: DID TRIAL COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE TWO: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(D) & (E) ISSUE THREE: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(N) ISSUE FOUR: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND F

2015TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i RECORD REFERENCES ii ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 ISSUES PRESENTED: 2 ISSUE ONE: DID TRIAL COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE TWO: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(D) & (E) ISSUE THREE: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(N) ISSUE FOUR: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND F

2015TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i RECORD REFERENCES ii ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 ISSUES PRESENTED: 2 ISSUE ONE: DID TRIAL COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE TWO: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(D) & (E) ISSUE THREE: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(N) ISSUE FOUR: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND F

2015TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i RECORD REFERENCES ii ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 ISSUES PRESENTED: 2 ISSUE ONE: DID TRIAL COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE TWO: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(D) & (E) ISSUE THREE: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(N) ISSUE FOUR: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND F

2015TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i RECORD REFERENCES ii ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 ISSUES PRESENTED: 2 ISSUE ONE: DID TRIAL COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE TWO: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(D) & (E) ISSUE THREE: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(N) ISSUE FOUR: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND F

2015TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i RECORD REFERENCES ii ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 ISSUES PRESENTED: 2 ISSUE ONE: DID TRIAL COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE TWO: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(D) & (E) ISSUE THREE: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(N) ISSUE FOUR: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND F

2015The trial court may exercise its discretion in granting a new trial without a showing of reversible error as a matter of law but only if the defendant has demonstrated his first trial was “seriously flawed and the flaw adversely affected his substantial right to a fair trial.” Id. 9 In making a decision at a motion for new trial hearing, the trial judge may consider the evidence and what transpired at the trial, any affidavits involved, and the testimony adduced at the hearing on the motion.

2015TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT i RECORD REFERENCES ii ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 ISSUES PRESENTED: 2 ISSUE ONE: DID TRIAL COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE TWO: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(D) & (E) ISSUE THREE: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER §161.001(1)(N) ISSUE FOUR: WAS THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY AND F

2014See id.; see also Landers, 256 S.W.3d at 304-05 ; McDonald, 877 S.W.2d at 471-72 .

2014See, e.g., In re Carter, No. 01-13-01021-CV, 2014 WL 2809822 , at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 19, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (granting habeas corpus relief even though relator failed to file reporter’s record from hearing because “the testimony adduced at the hearing is not relevant or necessary to the disposition of this petition”); In re Health Discovery Corp., 148 S.W.3d 163 , 165–66 n.4 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, orig. proceeding) (“suspend[ing]” requirements of rule 5 52.7(a)(1) “[i]n the absence of any dispute concerning the factual basis for Relator’s request in this o

2012However, we must note that, despite such a conclusion, “this element would not control over all other considerations.” Milner, 263 S.W.3d at 150 ; see Richardson, 181 S.W.3d at 760 (“Although a defendant’s ability to make bail is a factor for consideration, inability to make bail, even to the point of indigence, does not control over the other factors.”).

1985Dr. Stubbs cites Brown v. McLennan County Children’s Protective Services, 627 S.W.2d 390 (Tex.1982), as authority for his argument that the waiver of citation and the agreement incident to divorce signed by Ruth Stubbs satisfy the requirement of a complete record under section 11.14(d).

1980The correct rule is set forth in White v. Hall, 525 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.1975), as follows: Former testimony is not admissible if a witness is available at the subsequent trial.

1969Seay v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 395 S.W.2d 40 ; Bradford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 336 ; Rawls v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 414 , 76 S.W.2d 1053 ; Thompson v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 478 , 187 S.W. 204 ; 29 Tex.Jur. 2d 173; Homicide, Section 142; 4 A.L.R. 3d 149 , Section 3 at 156.

1969Seay v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 395 S.W.2d 40 ; Bradford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 336 ; Rawls v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 414 , 76 S.W.2d 1053 ; Thompson v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 478 , 187 S.W. 204 ; 29 Tex.Jur. 2d 173; Homicide, Section 142; 4 A.L.R. 3d 149 , Section 3 at 156.

1969Seay v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 395 S.W.2d 40 ; Bradford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 336 ; Rawls v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 414 , 76 S.W.2d 1053 ; Thompson v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 478 , 187 S.W. 204 ; 29 Tex.Jur. 2d 173; Homicide, Section 142; 4 A.L.R. 3d 149 , Section 3 at 156.

1969Seay v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 395 S.W.2d 40 ; Bradford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 336 ; Rawls v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 414 , 76 S.W.2d 1053 ; Thompson v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 478 , 187 S.W. 204 ; 29 Tex.Jur. 2d 173; Homicide, Section 142; 4 A.L.R. 3d 149 , Section 3 at 156.

1969Seay v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 395 S.W.2d 40 ; Bradford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 336 ; Rawls v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 414 , 76 S.W.2d 1053 ; Thompson v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 478 , 187 S.W. 204 ; 29 Tex.Jur. 2d 173; Homicide, Section 142; 4 A.L.R. 3d 149 , Section 3 at 156.

1969Seay v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 395 S.W.2d 40 ; Bradford v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 336 ; Rawls v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 414 , 76 S.W.2d 1053 ; Thompson v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 478 , 187 S.W. 204 ; 29 Tex.Jur. 2d 173; Homicide, Section 142; 4 A.L.R. 3d 149 , Section 3 at 156.

1959This case is distinguishable from the cases of Haig v. Gittings, Tex.Civ.App., 260 S.W.2d 311 , and Houston Credit Sales Co. v. English, Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 163 , no writ history, cited and relied on by appellant.

1959This case is distinguishable from the cases of Haig v. Gittings, Tex.Civ.App., 260 S.W.2d 311 , and Houston Credit Sales Co. v. English, Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 163 , no writ history, cited and relied on by appellant.

1941In this connection he further expresses the opinion and belief that the closing of the receivership and discharge of the receiver should be governed by the rules laid down in the cases of Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Grays, Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 289 ; Rex Refining Co. v. Morris, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 156 ; and Taylor v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 394 .