Obella v. State
532 S.W.3d 405
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault and received a 30-year sentence.
- Appellant filed a motion for new trial alleging his plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel and attached supporting affidavits; he requested a hearing.
- The State responded with its own response and counsel affidavit; the trial court did not hold a hearing and the motion was overruled by operation of law.
- The court of appeals held the motion raised factual matters not determinable from the record and abused its discretion by failing to hold a hearing; it abated the appeal and remanded for a hearing.
- The State filed a motion for rehearing in the court of appeals arguing appellant failed to timely "present" the motion for new trial; the court of appeals declined to consider that issue, saying the State had forfeited it by not raising it earlier.
- The State sought discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals asserting preservation-of-error (presentment) was a systemic issue the court must address; the Court granted review, vacated the court of appeals judgment, and remanded to require the court of appeals to address presentment.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not holding a hearing on the new-trial motion | Appellant argued his pleadings and affidavits raised factual matters outside the record requiring a hearing | State argued appellant failed to properly present the motion for new trial to the trial court within 10 days, so no hearing was required | Court of appeals originally held abuse of discretion; higher court vacated and remanded for the court of appeals to decide presentment first |
| Whether the presentment issue was forfeited by the State because it raised it only in a motion for rehearing | Appellant implicitly relied on the court of appeals' view that the State forfeited the issue | State argued presentment involves error preservation and courts must address it even if raised late | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the court of appeals should address presentment and granted review on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (clarifying that a motion for new trial must be presented to the trial court to preserve complaint about lack of hearing)
- Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (appellate courts must ensure claims were preserved in trial court before addressing merits)
- Gipson v. State, 383 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appellate courts may not reverse without first addressing error-preservation issues)
- Meadoux v. State, 325 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (discussing necessity of addressing preservation before merits)
- Jack v. State, 149 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (limitations on this Court’s review of interlocutory abatement orders)
- Wentworth v. Meyer, 839 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1992) (motions for rehearing cannot raise new issues)
- Phifer v. Nacogdoches Cty. Cent. Appraisal Dist., 45 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2000) (a motion for rehearing is to correct errors on issues already presented)