Opinion
No. 05-08-00404-CR
Opinion filed June 26, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F06-67546-X.
Before Justices MOSELEY, FITZGERALD, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, DeShonda Yvette Davis, appeals her conviction for murder. The State indicted appellant for capital murder but later moved to reduce the charge to murder. After appellant pleaded guilty to murder without the benefit of a plea bargain, the trial court assessed punishment at 25 years in prison and found that appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. In her sole issue on appeal, appellant asks that we remand this case to the trial court for a hearing on her motion for speedy trial. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm. On June 26, 2006, Tony Lyles was shot and killed during the commission of a robbery. Appellant was arrested for the murder the next day. The grand jury returned a capital murder indictment against appellant on August 23. Appellant's attorney filed a motion for speedy trial on September 6, which stated:
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." This right was made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 222-223, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1, 87 S. Ct. 988 (1967). Article I, § 10, of the Texas Constitution provides in relevant part that "in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial." Article 1.l05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays the Court set this matter for trial to comport with the constitutional mandates of guaranteeing a speedy trial for the accused.In her brief, appellant analyzes the Barker v. Wingo factors and urges this Court to remand the case to the trial court for a hearing on her speedy trial motion. In the motion, appellant asked the trial court to set the case for a trial-she did not request a hearing on the motion. Appellant concedes that no hearing was held and that she did not get a ruling on her motion. We cannot remand a case for a hearing on a motion when no request for a hearing was presented to the trial court. See Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (refusing to remand for hearing on motion for new trial when appellant did not request hearing on motion). Additionally, because a hearing was not held, appellant did not present any evidence or arguments to support her motion, and we may not consider arguments made for the first time on appeal. Dragoo v. State, 96 S.W.3d 308, 313 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Although the record does not contain the arrest papers, the judgment indicates that appellant was credited for time served from June 27, 2006 to March 10, 2008, the date judgment was rendered.
407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972) (discussing factors to balance in analyzing right to speedy trial under United States Constitution). See Phipps v. State, 630 S.W.2d 942, 946 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982) (discussing same balancing factors in analyzing right to speedy trial under Texas Constitution).