History
  • No items yet
midpage
Royal v. State
659 S.W.2d 135
Tex. App.
1983
Check Treatment

OPINION

BROOKSHIRE, Justice.

Ralph Wayne Royal, Jr., complains that his Motion for New Trial should have been granted. The record indicates that the Motion for New Trial, which alleged newly discovered evidence, was filed with affidavit attached; but, thereafter, no hearing was requested or held and no action was taken by the Court either granting or denying the motion.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of misdemeanor theft. The Court assessed a fine of Two Hundred Fifty and No/100 ($250.00) Dollars.

An affidavit attached to a Motion for New Trial is but a pleading that authorizes the introduction of supporting evidence. It is not evidence in itself; and, in order to constitute evidence, the motion should be presented and the affidavit, along with other evidence, needs to be introduced as such at the hearing on the motion, which was not done in this case. Rios v. State, 510 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Stephenson v. State, 494 S.W.2d 900, 909-910 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Consequently, nothing is presented for review. See Simon v. State, 630 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ).

AFFIRMED.

Case Details

Case Name: Royal v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Sep 7, 1983
Citation: 659 S.W.2d 135
Docket Number: No. 09 83 001 CR
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.