Skip to main content

State v. Garza

Citations

  • 931 S.W.2d 560
  • 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 181
  • 1996 WL 512394

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case when a timely motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law
  • holding that criminal rule 31(e)(3) should be interpreted no differently from civil rule
  • holding appellate court did not err in declining to use appellate rule 2(b) to suspend appellate rule 31(e)(3) (now Tex. R.App. P. 21.8(c)) to allow trial court’s untimely granting of a new trial to become valid retroactively
  • a court of appeals is not bound to employ Rule 2(b) even on a showing of good cause
  • a court of appeals is not bound to employ Rule 2(b) even on a showing of good cause
  • oral order noted in written docket sheet entry prior to seventy-fifth day is not sufficient to prevent automatic overruling of motion for new trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clinton, White, Maloney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

72 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.