I conclude the court of appeals correctly interpreted the law ... because the new matters were not raised within 30 days of the date sentence was imposed and were not a permissible amendment to the motion for new trial in light of the State's objection.Cueva v. State, 354 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (Alcala, J., concurring in denial of motion for rehearing of Court's refusal of petition for discretional review, joined by Price & Cochran, JJ.) (citing Tex.R.App. P. 21.4(b)).
I conclude the court of appeals correctly interpreted the law ... because the new matters were not raised within 30 days of the date sentence was imposed and were not a permissible amendment to the motion for new trial in light of the State's objection. Cueva v. State, 354 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (Alcala, J., concurring in denial of motion for rehearing of Court's refusal of petition for discretional review, joined by Price & Cochran, JJ.) (citing Tex.R.App. P. 21.4(b) ).
. . . I conclude the court of appeals correctly interpreted the law . . . because the new matters were not raised within 30 days of the date sentence was imposed and were not a permissible amendment to the motion for new trial in light of the State's objection.Cueva v. State, 354 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Alcala, J., concurring, joined by Price & Cochran, JJ.) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4(b)).
I conclude the court of appeals correctly interpreted the law ... because the new matters were not raised within 30 days of the date sentence was imposed and were not a permissible amendment to the motion for new trial in light of the State's objection. Cueva v. State, 354 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (Alcala, J., concurring in denial of motion for rehearing of court's refusal of petition for discretional review, joined by Price and Cochran, JJ.), citing TEX. R. APP. P. . 21.4(b). Similarly, in Zalman, the defendant presented an argument at the new-trial hearing that was not alleged in his timely-filed motion.
The court of appeals correctly concluded that the new ineffective-assistance allegations and evidence related to those allegations could not have been properly considered by the trial court in rending its ruling on the motion and that the new evidence should not be examined in its analysis of the issues on appeal. I conclude the court of appeals correctly interpreted the law . . . because the new matters were not raised within 30 days of the date sentence was imposed and were not a permissible amendment to the motion for new trial in light of the State's objection. [Citations omitted].Cueva v. State, 354 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011)(Alcala, J., concurring in denial of motion for rehearing of Court's refusal of petition for discretional review, joined by Price and Cochran, JJ.), citing TEX.R.APP.P. 21.4(b). Similarly, in Zalman, the defendant presented an argument at the new-trial hearing that was not alleged in his timely-filed motion.
Courts have noted it is necessary for the defendant to specifically identify the bases of her claims in a motion for new trial to give the “[trial] court enough notice to prepare for the hearing and make informed rulings and to allow the State enough information to prepare a rebutting argument.” State v. Zalman, 400 S.W.3d 590, 593-94 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013). However, while the failure to file a motion for new trial within thirty days deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to hear the motion, there is no jurisdictional bar to hearing a late-filed amendment to an otherwise timely-filed motion; therefore, a trial court is only barred from considering new issues in an untimely-filed amendment if the State objects to hearing those new issues. See, e.g., State v. Moore, 225 S.W.3d 556, 557, 568-70 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007); see also Cueva v. State, 354 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011)(Alcala, J., concurring). Thus, if the State objects, the trial court is not entitled to consider any additional grounds not raised in the original motion.
s, 511 S.W.3d 797, 807-808 (TexApp-El Paso 2016, pet ref'd)(citing TexRAppP 241) Courts have noted it is necessary for the defendant to specifically identify the bases of her claims in a motion for new trial to give the "[trial] court enough notice to prepare for the hearing and make informed rulings and to allow the State enough information to prepare a rebutting argument" State v Zalman, 400 S.W.3d 590, 593-94 (TexCrimApp 2013) However, while the failure to file a motion for new trial within thirty days deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to hear the motion, there is no jurisdictional bar to hearing a late-filed amendment to an otherwise timely-filed motion; therefore, a trial court is only barred from considering new issues in an untimely-filed amendment if the State objects to hearing those new issues See, e.g., State v Moore, 225 S.W.3d 556, 557, 568-70 (TexCrimApp 2007); see also Cueva v State, 354 S.W.3d 820, 822 (TexCrimApp 2011)(Alcala, J, concurring). Thus, if the State objects, the trial court is not entitled to consider any additional grounds not raised in the original motion. Frias, 511 S.W.3d at 805-06, 808 (where State properly objected to untimely amendment to defendant's motion for new trial raising new grounds on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court was not entitled to rely on any new ground raised in the amendment); see also State v. Arizmendi, 519 S.W.3d 143, 150-51 (Tex.Crim.App. 2017)(trial court was barred from considering defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, where State lodged a proper objection after defendant raised it for the first time in an untimely amendment to a motion for new trial); Zalman, 400 S.W.3d at 591-92
See Drew v. State, 743 S.W.2d 207, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); In re Pettigrew, 301 S.W.3d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2009, orig. proceeding); Perez v. State, 261 S.W.3d 760, 770 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. ref'd). Cf. Cueva v. State, 354 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (concurring op. on denial of reh'g on denial of petition for discretionary review) (discussing the distinction between original motions for new trial and untimely amendments to motions for new trial); State v. Moore, 225 S.W.3d 556, 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (same). In the instant case, relator filed his motion for new trial almost nine months after the trial court imposed his sentence.