prerequisite hearing in Texas

2026Their existence therefore did not entitle Armstrong to a hearing on her motion. 3 See Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339 (“[A]s a prerequisite to a hearing when the grounds in the motion [for new trial] are based on matters not already in the record, . . . the motion [must] be supported by an affidavit, either of the defendant or someone else, specifically setting out the factual basis for the claim.”); Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (“A motion for new trial alleging facts outside the record without supporting affidavits is not a proper pleading and is defecti

2024He argues that his appellate counsel could not obtain an affidavit from 19 him because he was incarcerated at the time,5 but he cites to no authority holding that this is an exception to the Court of Criminal Appeals’ longstanding precedent requiring motions for new trial raising grounds not determinable from the record to be supported by an affidavit, which need not be executed by the defendant.6 See Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339 (“Thus we require, as a prerequisite to a hearing when the grounds in the motion are based on matters not already in the record, that the motion be supported by an affida

2024Id.

2009To hold otherwise would deny the accused meaningful appellate review.” 14 “[R]ecogniz[ing] that an unrestricted requirement of a hearing on matters not determinable from the record could lead to ‘fishing expeditions,’” we have also held that even a defendant who has raised such matters is not entitled to a hearing on his motion for new trial unless he “establishes the existence of ‘reasonable grounds’ showing that the defendant ‘could be entitled to relief.’” 15 Thus we require, as a prerequisite to a hearing when the grounds in the motion are based on matters not already in the record, that t

2015See Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339 (requiring, as a prerequisite to a hearing when the grounds in the motion for new trial are based on matters not already in the record, that the motion be supported by an affidavit, either of the defendant or someone else, specifically setting out the factual basis for 11 the claim); Jordan, 883 S.W.2d at 665 (finding a hearing was not required when the appellant’s affidavit was conclusory and failed to show why his counsel was deficient or prejudiced him).

2008Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â To deter "fishing expeditions," a prerequisite to a hearing on a motion for new trial is that the motion must be supported by an affidavit showing the truth of the grounds of attack.

2003Kreider, *80 44 S.W.3d at 263; Brown v. City of Houston, 8 S.W.3d 331, 334 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, pet. denied).

2003Kreider , 44 S.W.3d at 263 ; Brown v. City of Houston , 8 S.W.3d 331, 334 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, pet. denied).

2024As the court of appeals put it, Chatha directs courts to conduct this inquiry “by using a three-prong test,” which the court recounted as follows: First, “to fall within the ambit of section 311.034, a prerequisite must be found in the relevant statutory language.” “Second, the prerequisite must be a requirement.” Third, “the term ‘pre’ indicates the requirement must be met before the lawsuit is filed.” 644 S.W.3d at 751 (citations omitted) (quoting Chatha, 381 S.W.3d at 512 ).

2023“Second, the prerequisite must be a requirement.” Id.

2023State v. Kreider, 44 S.W.3d 258, 263 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied).

2003State v. Kreider , 44 S.W.3d 258, 263 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied).

2004Daniels v. State , 63 S.W.3d 67, 70 (Tex. App.—Houston [14 th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d).

2004Daniels v. State , 63 S.W.3d 67, 70 (Tex. App.—Houston [14 th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d).

2026Their existence therefore did not entitle Armstrong to a hearing on her motion. 3 See Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339 (“[A]s a prerequisite to a hearing when the grounds in the motion [for new trial] are based on matters not already in the record, . . . the motion [must] be supported by an affidavit, either of the defendant or someone else, specifically setting out the factual basis for the claim.”); Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (“A motion for new trial alleging facts outside the record without supporting affidavits is not a proper pleading and is defecti

2019“A motion for new trial alleging facts outside the record without supporting affidavits is not a proper pleading and is defective; a trial court does not err in refusing to grant a hearing on such a motion.” Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing Flores v. State, 18 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.)); see Cox v. State, No. 03-12-00751-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9401 , at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 26, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (explaining that hearing is not required when matter raised in motion for new t

2022Third, “the term ‘pre’ indicates the requirement must be met before the lawsuit is filed.” Id. (citing Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919, 925 (Tex. 2011), which held that post-suit notice requirement was not jurisdictional, even in light of section 311.034, because post-suit notice is not “prerequisite” to suit).

2012See Roccaforte v. Jefferson Cnty., 341 S.W.3d 919, 925 (Tex.2011) (holding that post-suit notice requirement was not jurisdictional, even in light of section 311.034, because post-suit notice is not a “prerequisite” to suit).

2020Further, “as a prerequisite to a hearing when the grounds in the motion are based on matters not already in the record,” and to prevent fishing expeditions, a motion for new trial must be “supported by an affidavit, either of the defendant or someone else, specifically setting out the factual basis for the claim.” Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339 ; Chapa v. State, 407 S.W.3d 428, 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.).

2015Chapa, 407 S.W.3d at 431 .

2011App. 2009) (―Thus we require, as a prerequisite to a hearing when the grounds in the motion are based on matters not already in the record, that the motion be supported by an affidavit, either of the defendant or someone else, specifically setting out the factual basis for the claim.‖); Bahm v. State, 219 S.W.3d 391 , 393–94 (Tex. Crim.

2011App. 2009) (“Thus we require, as a prerequisite to a hearing when the grounds in the motion are based on matters not already in the record, that the motion be supported by an affidavit, either of the defendant or someone else, specifically setting out the factual basis for the claim.”); Bahm v. State , 219 S.W.3d 391 , 393–94 (Tex. Crim.

2024Id. at 339 ; see Wallace v. State, 106 S.W.3d 103, 108 (Tex. Crim.

2011Id.

2015Pollock, 284 S.W.3d at 821 (“A governmental entity is substantially certain that its actions will damage property only when the damage is ‘necessarily an incident to, or necessarily a consequential result of the [entity’s] action.’”) (quoting Jennings, 142 S.W.3d at 314 ).

2015Id. 10 “It is certainly necessary for an owner to establish cause in fact as a prerequisite to a claim for inverse condemnation.” Sloan Creek II, L.L.C. v. N. Tex. Tollway Auth., No. 05-14-01456-CV, 2015 WL 5093318, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 28, 2015, no. pet. h.) (citing Pollock, 284 S.W.3d at 821 ).

2009To hold otherwise would deny the accused meaningful appellate review.” 14 “[R]ecogniz[ing] that an unrestricted requirement of a hearing on matters not determinable from the record could lead to ‘fishing expeditions,’” we have also held that even a defendant who has raised such matters is not entitled to a hearing on his motion for new trial unless he “establishes the existence of ‘reasonable grounds’ showing that the defendant ‘could be entitled to relief.’” 15 Thus we require, as a prerequisite to a hearing when the grounds in the motion are based on matters not already in the record, that t

1994Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816 ; McIntire, 698 S.W.2d at 658 .

2024App. 2009) (“Thus we require, as a prerequisite to a hearing when the grounds in the motion are based on matters not already in the record, that the motion be supported by an affidavit, either of the defendant or someone else, specifically setting out the factual basis for the claim.”); Dotson v. State, 146 S.W.3d 285, 301 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d) (“As a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing, the motion must be supported by an affidavit that specifically demonstrates the truth of the grounds for attack.”).

2021Tenorio, 543 S.W.3d at 775 (citing City of Dallas v. Carbajal, 324 S.W.3d 537, 537-38 (Tex. 2010)).

2020Jordan v. Ector Cty., 290 S.W.3d 404, 406 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009, no pet.).

2019“A motion for new trial alleging facts outside the record without supporting affidavits is not a proper pleading and is defective; a trial court does not err in refusing to grant a hearing on such a motion.” Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing Flores v. State, 18 S.W.3d 796, 798 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.)); see Cox v. State, No. 03-12-00751-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9401 , at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 26, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (explaining that hearing is not required when matter raised in motion for new t

2015Marquez v. State, 356 S.W.2d 797,799 (Tex. Crim.

2015Id. 10 “It is certainly necessary for an owner to establish cause in fact as a prerequisite to a claim for inverse condemnation.” Sloan Creek II, L.L.C. v. N. Tex. Tollway Auth., No. 05-14-01456-CV, 2015 WL 5093318, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 28, 2015, no. pet. h.) (citing Pollock, 284 S.W.3d at 821 ).

2013Spakes v. State, 913 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).

2011Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816 ; Stokes v. State, 298 S.W.3d 428, 431 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (citing Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339 ).

2006See Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest , 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding) (stating judgment is void when it is apparent that court rendering judgment had no jurisdiction).