Valdez v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Garcia v. State

    673 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App. 2023)

    Clearing it required presentation of the motion to the trial judge or another authorized to act for him. Stokes v. State , 277 S.W.3d 20, 21–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (quoting Carranza v. State , 960 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ); Valdez v. State , No. 03-16-00191-CR, 2017 WL 2729669, at *2, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5813, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin June 23, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). And, presentation must be through a means affording "actual notice" of the motion.

  2. Navarro v. State

    588 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. App. 2019)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that to preserve a disproportionate sentencing complaint, the defendant must make a timely, specific objection in the trial court or raise the issue in a motion for new trial

    In line with this precedent, the Austin Court of Appeals requires that in order to preserve a disproportionate sentencing issue, the motion for new trial must actually be presented to the trial court within ten days of filing. Valdez v. State , No. 03-16-00191-CR, 2017 WL 2729669, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin June 23, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 ; Carranza , 960 S.W.2d at 78 ); see alsoRozell v. State , 176 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).