Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. App. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. App. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (45 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ricardo Martell Espinoza v. State (texapp, 2009-07-02)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ricardo Martell Espinoza v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
App. 1993); Amaro v. State , 970 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ricardo Martell Espinoza v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
App. 1993); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Buerger v. State, 60 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.], pet. ref’d); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith, Gerald Wayne
Tex. Crim. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Buerger v. State , 60 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.], pet. ref'd); Amaro v. State , 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith, Gerald Wayne
Tex. Crim. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Buerger v. State, 60 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], pet. ref’d); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Joseph Tatum v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
State , 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex. App.སྭCorpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State , 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex. App.སྭFort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tatum v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Joseph Tatum v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
State , 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State , 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cozzi v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
P. 21.6 (providing generally that defendant must present motion for new trial to trial court within ten days of its filing); Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (holding that appellant had burden not only to file motion for new trial, but also to “present” it to the trial court); see also Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173-74 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raymond Domonic Cozzi Jr. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
App. 1993); Amaro v. State , 970 S.W.2d 172, 173-74 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raymond Domonic Cozzi Jr. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
App. 1993); Amaro v. State , 970 S.W.2d 172, 173-74 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Craig Roth v. State
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
App. 1993); Amaro v. State , 970 S.W.2d 172, 173-74 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Craig Roth v. State
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
App. 1993); Amaro v. State , 970 S.W.2d 172, 173-74 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Buerger v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
See art. 42.12, § 5(b); Amaro, 970 S.W.2d at 173 (finding that a motion for new trial is reviewable, notwithstanding the fact that it addresses issues arising from the determination to adjudicate); Keller v. State, 854 S.W.2d 224, 227 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1993, pet. ref d) (addressing claim that trial court erred by failing to grant a motion for new trial concerning probation revocation despite state’s argument that reviewing court had no jurisdiction under article 42.12).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ollie Gray Champion v. State of Texas (2×)
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 78 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Martinez v. State, 28 S.W.3d 815, 816 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 2000, pet. granted); Amaro v. State , 970 S.W.2d 172, 173-74 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ollie Gray Champion v. State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 78 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Martinez v. State, 28 S.W.3d 815, 816 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 2000, pet. granted); Amaro v. State , 970 S.W.2d 172, 173-74 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ollie Gray Champion v. State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 78 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Martinez v. State, 28 S.W.3d 815, 816 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 2000, pet. granted); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173-74 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David Medina v. State of Texas (2×)
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 78 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Martinez v. State, 28 S.W.3d 815, 816 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 2000, pet. granted); Amaro v. State , 970 S.W.2d 172, 173-74 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited "see" Daniels v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.); art. 42.12, § 5(b) (“After an adjudication of guilt, all proceedings, including assessment of punishment, pronouncement of sentence, granting of community supervision, and defendant’s appeal continue as if the adjudication of guilt had not been deferred.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Thompson v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
App.1998) (holding that appellant had burden not only to file motion for new trial, but also to “present” it to the trial court); see also Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) 2 The court held that “present” means that the “record must show the movant for a new trial sustained the burden of actually delivering the motion for new trial to the trial court or otherwise bringing the motion to the attention or actual notice of the trial court.” Carranza, 960 S.W.2d at 78-79 ; Amaro, 970 S.W.2d at 174 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jonathan Paul Thompson v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
App. 1998) (holding that appellant had burden not only to file motion for new trial, but also to “present” it to the trial court); see also Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 174-75 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (footnote: 2) T he court held that “present” means that the “record must show the movant for a new trial sustained the burden of actually delivering the motion for new trial to the trial court or otherwise bringing the motion to the attention or actual notice of the trial court.” Carranza , 960 S.W.2d at 78-79 ; Amaro, 970 S.W.2d at 174 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Chad L. Butler v. State
Tex. App. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Connolly, 983 S.W.2d at 741 (holding that appellant whose deferred adjudication has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty “may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process ” not just in decision to proceed to adjudication) (emphasis added); see also Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (recognizing distinction between appeal of trial court’s denial of post-adjudication motion for new trial, substance of which involved claims arising from decision to adjudicate guilt, and appeal of trial court’s failure t…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Abraham Michael Linscomb v. State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Daniels, 63 S.W.3d at 69 ; see also Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding that a motion for new trial contention that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing does not arise from the determination to adjudicate guilt).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Abraham Michael Linscomb v. State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Daniels , 63 S.W.3d at 69 ; see also Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding that a motion for new trial contention that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing does not arise from the determination to adjudicate guilt).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Abraham Michael Linscomb v. State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Daniels , 63 S.W.3d at 69 ; see also Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding that a motion for new trial contention that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing does not arise from the determination to adjudicate guilt).
Gustavo AMARO, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, State
2-97-448-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Aug 13, 1998.
970 S.W.2d 172
Richard T. Alley, Fort Worth, for Appellant., Tim Curry, Crim. Dist. Atty., Charles M. Mallín, C. James Gibson, Andrea Rentie, Asst. Crim. Dist. Attys., for Appellee.
Livingston, Richards and Brigham.
Cited by 36 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

LIVINGSTON, Justice.

Without the benefit of a plea-bargain agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a prohibited weapon. On December 12, 1994, the trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of five years. Appellant violated the terms of Ms community supervision and, on April 25, 1997, the trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to five years’ confinement. Appellant raises one point on appeal challenging the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on Ms motion for new trial. We affirm.

Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on May 14, 1997. The trial court did not rule on appellant’s motion, thus it was overruled by operation of law. See Tex. R.App. P. 21.8(c). In a single point, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his motion for new trial. As an ancillary argument, appellant reasserts the grounds alleged in Ms motion for new trial: (1) his initial guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) Ms plea of true at the adjudication hearing to an alleged violation of community supervision was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

The State contends that we do not have jurisdiction because appellant’s claims are from the trial court’s determination to adjudicate. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon 1979 & Supp.1998). We disagree. Although the substance of appellant’s motion for new trial involved claims arising from the determination to adjudicate, the issue he presents on appeal — -that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his motion for new trial — does not arise from the determination to adjudicate. Therefore, the claim is not barred by article 42.12, section 5(b). See Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (“Article 42.12 § 5(b) expressly allows an appeal of all proceedings after adjudication of guilt on the original charge_”).

We review a trial court’s refusal to hold a hearing on a motion for new trial under an abuse of discretion standard. See Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 815 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). In an alternative argument, the State contends that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because appellant failed to “present” his motion to the trial court. We agree.

According to the rules of appellate procedure:

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 witMn 75 days from the date when the court imposes or suspends sentence in open court.

Tex.R.App. P. 21.6.

The court of criminal appeals has recently defined “present” within the meaning of the appellate rule. See Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 79-80 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). [1] In Carranza, the court held that[*174] “present” means that the “record must show the movant for a new trial sustained the burden of actually delivering the motion for new trial to the trial court or otherwise bringing the motion to the attention or actual notice of the trial court.” Id. Here, there is no evidence in the record that appellant delivered the motion or otherwise brought it to the attention of the trial court. Therefore, he did not present his motion within the meaning of rule 21.6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold a hearing on a motion that was not properly presented before it. [2]

We overrule appellant’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

1

. Although Carranzainterpreted former rule 31(c)(1), the current version is identical. Corn- pare Tex.R.App. P. 31(c)(1), 49 Tex. B.J. 564 (Tex.[*174] Crim.App.1986, revised 1997) with Tex.R.App. P. 21.6.

2

. There is an entry on the docket sheet that states, “Motion for new trial filed.” However, filing a motion for new trial alone is not sufficient to show presentment. See Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 815.