Rodriguez motion in Texas

2010Rodriguez, 903 S.W.2d at 412 ("Until such time as the Court of Criminal Appeals or the Texas Legislature changes the [sworn and in-writing] requirement, this procedure must be met.”). 9 .

2010Rodriguez , 903 S.W.2d at 412 ("Until such time as the Court of Criminal Appeals or the Texas Legislature changes the [sworn and in-writing] requirement, this procedure must be met."). 9 Robinson has not cited any authority holding that he was entitled to rely on Angela's presence at the punishment hearing — even though she did not receive a subpoena for that hearing — merely because she testified at the adjudication hearing.

2001We must therefore determine whether the record should be supplemented by a hearing on Rodriguez’s motion for new trial. “[T]he right to a hearing on a motion for new trial is not truly an ‘absolute right.’ ” Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 815 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). “[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 .

2001We must therefore determine whether the record should be supplemented by a hearing on Rodriguez’s motion for new trial. “[T]he right to a hearing on a motion for new trial is not truly an ‘absolute right.’ ” Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 815 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). “[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 .

2023See id.

2022See id.

2023See Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, no pet.) (“A ‘verdict’ that is contrary to ‘the law and the evidence’ raises issues that the Rodriguez v. State Page 28 trial court can determine from the record.

2022See Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, no pet.) (“A ‘verdict’ that is contrary to ‘the law and the evidence’ raises issues that the Rodriguez v. State Page 28 trial court can determine from the record.

2020P. 166a(i); Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy Corp., 519 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Tex. 2017); see also Zarate v. Rodriguez, 542 S.W.3d 26, 42 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (“Because Zarate did not file a response, the trial court was required to grant Rodriguez’s motion”); Imkie v. Methodist Hosp., 326 S.W.3d 339, 343 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (concluding resident physician’s failure to respond to hospital’s no-evidence summary judgment motion in premises liability action required trial court to render summary judgment in hospital’s favor).

2018See Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy Corp., 519 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Tex. 2017); Zarate, 542 S.W.3d at 41 (“Because Zarate did not file a response, the trial court was required to grant Rodriguez’s motion”).

2020P. 166a(i); Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy Corp., 519 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Tex. 2017); see also Zarate v. Rodriguez, 542 S.W.3d 26, 42 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (“Because Zarate did not file a response, the trial court was required to grant Rodriguez’s motion”); Imkie v. Methodist Hosp., 326 S.W.3d 339, 343 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (concluding resident physician’s failure to respond to hospital’s no-evidence summary judgment motion in premises liability action required trial court to render summary judgment in hospital’s favor).

2018See Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy Corp., 519 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Tex. 2017); Zarate, 542 S.W.3d at 41 (“Because Zarate did not file a response, the trial court was required to grant Rodriguez’s motion”).

2011See City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750, 753-54 (Tex. 1995) (“A successful challenge to evidentiary rulings usually requires the complaining party to show that the judgment turns on the particular evidence excluded or admitted.”).

2011See City of Brownsville v. Alvarado , 897 S.W.2d 750, 753-54 (Tex. 1995) ("A successful challenge to evidentiary rulings usually requires the complaining party to show that the judgment turns on the particular evidence excluded or admitted.").

2010See id. (fire fighter properly sought relief in courts without seeking further administrative relief when municipality failed to restore compensation and benefits as a result of an improper suspension because chapter 143 did not authorize the civil service commission to determine these issues).

2010See id. (fire fighter properly sought relief in courts without seeking further administrative relief when municipality failed to restore compensation and benefits as a result of an improper suspension because chapter 143 did not authorize the civil service commission to determine these issues).

2008See McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 613 (Tex. Crim.

2008See McDuff v. State , 939 S.W.2d 607, 613 (Tex. Crim.

2001“On the other hand, ..., in certain instances the trial judge abuses his discretion in failing to hold a hearing on a motion for new trial that raises matters which are not determinable from the record.” Id. “ ‘[A]s a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing’ and ‘as a matter of pleading,’ motions for new trial [must] be supported by affidavit, either of the accused-or someone else specifically showing the truth of the grounds of attack.” Id. (quoting Hicks v. State, 75 Tex.Crim. 461 , 171 S.W. 755, 763 (1913)).

2001“On the other hand, ..., in certain instances the trial judge abuses his discretion in failing to hold a hearing on a motion for new trial that raises matters which are not determinable from the record.” Id. “ ‘[A]s a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing’ and ‘as a matter of pleading,’ motions for new trial [must] be supported by affidavit, either of the accused-or someone else specifically showing the truth of the grounds of attack.” Id. (quoting Hicks v. State, 75 Tex.Crim. 461 , 171 S.W. 755, 763 (1913)).

2025He was sitting for the Honorable Brian Bolton, who presided over the pretrial motions and both phases of the trial. 12 Rodriguez argues, “[T]here were no cones, crime scene tape, police vehicles with emergency lights flashing, or officers standing guard that would clearly indicate [that] there was a crime scene.” She further argues that “no officers bothered to inform [her] that she needed to move away until Krueger aggressively approached [her].” 6 under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury ‘to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to

2019See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim.

2026About seven months later, Rodriguez amended his petition adding claims for damages from the removal of trees from the property, and statutory and common law fraud in regard to both the 2018 purchase of the property and the 5 “[D]iscovery sanctions can be used to adjudicate the merits of a party’s claims when a party’s hindrance of the discovery process justifies a presumption that its claims lack merit.” Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 841 (Tex. 2004); see TEX.

2025In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 83 (Tex. 2005) (holding that timetables were restarted when the changes to the judgment did not indicate that they were made to enlarge the time to appeal); Abercia v. Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd., 217 S.W.3d 688, 706 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. denied) (amended order restarted deadlines when it was clear from the record that the trial court vacated the first order in order to modify damages and reconsider the surety and interest rate).

2025In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 83 (Tex. 2005) (holding that timetables were restarted when the changes to the judgment did not indicate that they were made to enlarge the time to appeal); Abercia v. Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd., 217 S.W.3d 688, 706 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. denied) (amended order restarted deadlines when it was clear from the record that the trial court vacated the first order in order to modify damages and reconsider the surety and interest rate).

2025He was sitting for the Honorable Brian Bolton, who presided over the pretrial motions and both phases of the trial. 12 Rodriguez argues, “[T]here were no cones, crime scene tape, police vehicles with emergency lights flashing, or officers standing guard that would clearly indicate [that] there was a crime scene.” She further argues that “no officers bothered to inform [her] that she needed to move away until Krueger aggressively approached [her].” 6 under the direction of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury ‘to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to

2024See Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71, 79 (Tex. Crim.

2024Id. at 704, 706 . 7 The court of appeals affirmed the judgment because at the time of Rodriguez’s plea, he was eligible for community supervision.

2023See Fox, 234 S.W.3d at 33 .

2022See id. 4 Rodriguez’s motion: Rodriguez filed a no-evidence motion on all the Bank’s claims.

2022If viewed in that manner, his testimony provided him with no defense at all, because, as stated by the Texas Court of Criminal 17 Appeals, “Even accidental or unintentional movements and actions are voluntary.” Id.; see Rogers v. State, 105 S.W.3d 630, 639 (Tex. Crim.

2021See Mount, 217 S.W.3d at 724 (holding that if supported by the record, a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress will not be overturned).

2021See, e.g., Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 , 405–06 (Tex. Crim.

2020Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting Rodriguez’s motion for rehearing and entering an amended final judgment on February 11, 2019 was still timely. 4 re Dixon, 346 S.W.3d 906, 910 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2011, orig. proceeding).

2020P. 166a(i); Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy Corp., 519 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Tex. 2017); see also Zarate v. Rodriguez, 542 S.W.3d 26, 42 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (“Because Zarate did not file a response, the trial court was required to grant Rodriguez’s motion”); Imkie v. Methodist Hosp., 326 S.W.3d 339, 343 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (concluding resident physician’s failure to respond to hospital’s no-evidence summary judgment motion in premises liability action required trial court to render summary judgment in hospital’s favor).

2020See id.

2019See Gaal, 332 S.W.3d at 456 .