Rozell 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 defendant did not adequately advise trial court of desire to have hearing on motion for new trial because motion did not request hearing
• concluding that defendant does not preserve any error in the trial court’s failure to conduct a hearing if no request for a hearing was presented
• holding that presentment of a motion for new trial must give the trial court actual notice of a timely-filed motion
• holding that a criminal defendant must “present” a motion for new trial to the trial court, and indicating that presentment requires giving the trial court “actual notice” of the desire to have a hearing
• holding that a criminal defendant must A present @ a motion for new trial to the trial court, and indicating that presentment requires giving the trial court A actual notice @ of the desire to have a hearing
• holding a defendant must present trial judge with motion for new trial to preserve error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).