Texas Courts of Appeals
Garcia v. State
No. 07-22-00187-CR 07/12/23
Issue:
Did a motion for new trial attached to an email sent to a court coordinator constitute presentment and prove the recipient gained actual notice of its content?
Holding:
No. The court held that presentation must be through a means affording “actual notice” of the motion, and although an email might provide “actual notice,” the record in this case could not establish that the trial judge or someone with authority to act for the judge had actual notice of the amended motion for new trial or the disproportionality claim within it. Read opinion.
Commentary:
A defendant is usually required to present his motion for new trial to the trial court within 10 days of filing the motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.6. The purpose of the presentment rule is put the trial court on actual notice that the defendant wants the trial court to take some action on the motion for new trial, such as holding a hearing or issuing a ruling. Presentment can be accomplished in many ways, but the bottom line is that the record must show that whatever means was used gave the trial court actual notice of the motion, not merely constructive notice. Thus, merely filing a “certificate of presentment” with the motion for new trial is not sufficient to establish presentment, nor is a bare assertion by defense counsel that the attorney hand-delivered the motion to the trial court. In the same vein, as this case illustrates, evidence that defense counsel emailed the motion for new trial to the trial court or court coordinator will not suffice, alone, to show presentment, given that emails can be misdelivered, diverted to junk or spam folders, or otherwise not be actually received and read by the intended recipient.
State v. Ford
No. 10-22-00123-CR 07/12/23
Issue:
Can the State raise an issue in its reply brief against the trial court granting a new trial when the grounds were not alleged in the defendant’s motion for new trial?
Holding:
No. The court held that the State must raise new issues in its original brief. The courts of appeals can only consider arguments and authorities in a reply brief that are related to the arguments in the original brief, but new issues raised in a reply brief cannot be considered. The trial court may grant a motion for a new trial on a ground it believed the court had committed some material error likely to injure the defendant’s rights, even when the defendant did not assert the specific ground in his own motion for new trial. Read opinion.
Commentary:
For all of the appellate prosecutors out there, remember that the appellant (usually the defendant, but the State in this instance) must present all appropriate issues or points of error that he has in his original brief; he cannot wait for the appellee’s brief on the merits and then file a reply brief which presents a novel issue or point of error. The appellant’s reply brief can add nuance or new authority to an existing argument, but any such additions must be sufficiently “related to the arguments in the original brief” or else, as here, will not be considered by the appellate court.
For all of the trial prosecutors out there, remember to make all pertinent objections to the trial court’s ruling or actions at the trial court level, so that error will be preserved for your appellate comrades in the event they need to pursue a State’s appeal.
Coleman v. State
No. 09-21-00155-CR 07/12/23
Issue:
Did an indictment fail to provide the defendant with adequate notice of the State’s theory of prosecution and hinder him from preparing a defense because the indictment did not allege what “use, alteration, transfer, or redemption” of supplemental nutrition assistance program (“SNAP”) benefits had occurred that had been done in a “manner not authorized by law” under Human Resources Code §33.011?
Holding:
No. The court held that the indictment and the discovery available gave the defendant with adequate notice of the State’s theory that the defendant was knowingly redeeming, transferring, and using SNAP benefits in a manner that violated the law applicable to the SNAP program. Read opinion.
Commentary:
This opinion reminds us that, in cases involving a single offense that spans a period of years, the State must provide more information than merely tracking the language of the relevant statute to give the defendant adequate notice of the charge against him. However, the State can provide such information by means other than including it the language within the four corners of the charging instrument. For instance, the State can file documents that list or describe the particular infractions along the continuum of the offense. Or, as here, the State can provide the defense with discovery that constitutes “a roadmap of the State’s case” and shows the way(s) in which the State is alleging that the defendant committed the offense. This opinion is thorough and soundly reasoned, and, thus, should withstand scrutiny by the Court of Criminal Appeals, if the defendant seeks discretionary review.
Also, if you’re curious about the history of the food stamp program and SNAP benefits, or the ways that these types of cases are investigated, this opinion will provide ample food for thought.