Jeff Martinez v. the State of Texas
01-21-00240-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 10, 2022Background
- Jeff Martinez was indicted for murder, pleaded guilty to reduced charge of manslaughter (no plea bargain on sentence), and received 10 years’ confinement.
- Martinez timely filed a motion for new trial that acknowledged the 75-day rule for ruling and attached two affidavits.
- A hearing was set for January 3, 2018, but on the parties’ agreed motion the court continued it to January 24 (beyond the 75-day period); the 75-day period expired January 8, 2018, so the motion was overruled by operation of law.
- An untimely hearing was held February 8, 2018 (after the motion was deemed denied); the court denied the motion.
- Martinez filed an untimely notice of appeal; the Court of Appeals dismissed that appeal. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later granted Martinez an out-of-time appeal, and Martinez now seeks abatement for a timely motion-for-new-trial hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of complaint about lack of hearing after motion is overruled by operation of law | Martinez contends he preserved the issue by timely filing the motion and requesting a hearing (relying on Montelongo) | State argues Martinez waived/forfeited the complaint | Court agrees Montelongo preserves the issue when motion and hearing request are timely filed, but this case raises a distinct estoppel issue |
| Entitlement to abatement / another timely hearing on motion for new trial | Martinez requests the appeal be abated so the trial court can hold a timely hearing on his previously filed motion | State argues Martinez invited the error by agreeing to the continuance; trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule after operation-of-law denial; CCA’s out-of-time appeal does not give trial court authority to hold a new timely hearing | Court holds Martinez is estopped by his agreed continuance (invited error); cannot abate for a new hearing; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Montelongo v. State, 623 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (contemporaneous objection not required when motion for new trial is overruled by operation of law)
- Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (invited-error doctrine: party cannot complain on appeal about error it induced)
- Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (law of invited error estops party from appellate relief based on induced error)
- In re State ex rel. Ogg, 618 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. 2021) (trial court cannot create jurisdiction where none exists)
- McCoy v. State, 996 S.W.2d 896 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (trial court had no jurisdiction to rule on a second motion for new trial after CCA authorized an out-of-time appeal)
- State v. Moore, 225 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (hearing held after motion for new trial overruled by operation of law is unauthorized)