Gillenwaters v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that appellant preserved error on as-applied challenge to statute raised pretrial by raising the issue again in a motion for new trial
• holding that appellant’s motion for new trial was sufficient under Rule 33.1 to preserve for appellate consideration his “unconstitutionally vague as applied” challenge to telephone harassment statute
• holding that appellant, who had preserved facial challenge to statute through motion to quash indictment, had also preserved an “as applied” challenge to statute through his motion for new trial
• holding that a defendant = s motion for new trial is specific enough to put the court on notice of a claim if any reasonable trial judge would have understood the motion
• concluding that appellant preserved error on as-applied challenge to statute by moving for a new trial and that as-applied challenges cannot be raised by pre-trial motions to quash the indictment because trial courts need evidence to -decide these challenges
• holding that, while appellant’s motion for new trial asserted only a general as- applied challenge and the word “vague” appeared nowhere in the motion, the motion, 6 in context, sufficiently preserved “unconstitutionally vague as applied” challenge to statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).