Nos. 01-02-01040-CR, 01-02-01041-CR
Opinion issued November 26, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.4.
On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 894614 894615.
Panel consists of Justices TAFT, JENNINGS, and HANKS.
GEORGE C. HANKS, Jr. Justice.
A jury found appellant, Arthur Himell Rozell, guilty of two separate offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a child and assessed his punishment at confinement for 15 years in each case. We address whether the trial court erred in not holding a hearing on appellant's motion for new trial. We affirm.
Trial court cause nos. 894614 and 894615.
Ander's Brief
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief stating that, in his opinion, the appeal was frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 So. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why no arguable grounds for error on appeal exist. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.Crim. App. 1969). Counsel certifies that he served a copy of the brief on appellant and advised him of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant filed a pro se response. Motion for New Trial Hearing
In his sole point of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his motion for new trial before it denied the motion. A motion for new trial gives a defendant a right to a hearing on matters not determinable from the record, but only if the defendant files the motion in writing within 30 days after the sentence, presents the motion to the trial court within 10 days after filing, and requests a hearing. Tex.R.App.P. 21.4(a), 21.6; Donovan v. State, 17 S.W.3d 407, 410 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000), aff'd, 68 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). The record reflects that appellant's attorney filed a motion for new trial within 30 days of the date of judgment. However, the record contains no evidence that appellant presented the motion to the trial court within 10 days of filing the motion as required by Rule 21.6. See Tex.R.App.P. 21.6. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's sole point of error. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court's judgment.