Otis Gene Garrett v. State
Otis Gene Garrett v. State
Opinion
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Nos. 10-05-00161-CR, 10-05-00162-CR
& 10-05-00163-CR
Otis Gene Garrett,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the Criminal District Court No. 2
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 0905526D, 0913133D & 0914668D
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Otis Gene Garrett pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain to two charges of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one charge of possession of child pornography. The court sentenced Garrett to sixty years’ imprisonment on each of the aggravated sexual assault charges and ten years’ imprisonment on the child pornography charge. Garrett contends in his sole point that the court abused its discretion by allowing his motion for new trial in each case to be overruled by operation of law. We will affirm.
The court imposed sentence on February 25, 2005. Twenty days later, Garrett’s counsel filed in each case a motion to detain Garrett at the county jail (i.e., to not transfer Garrett to prison) until a hearing was held on Garrett’s anticipated motion for new trial or until the deadline for filing such a motion had passed. The court did not rule on the motions to detain. Garrett filed his motions for new trial on March 23. These motions were overruled by operation of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.8.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that Garrett presented the motions for new trial to the court. Thus, he has not preserved his complaint for appellate review. See Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228, 230-31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Cozzi v. State, 160 S.W.3d 638, 640-41 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we overrule his sole point and affirm the judgments.
FELIPE REYNA
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed March 15, 2006
Do not publish
[CR25]
summary-judgment evidence that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); e.g., Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985); Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Norris, 949 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, writ denied). The trial court did not state the specific grounds for granting the motion, and therefore our review is for whether any of Continental’s theories are correct. Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995).
We have reviewed the record and find that it supports the trial court’s ruling. We affirm the judgment.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Davis,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Gray
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed April 17, 2002
Do not publish
[CV06]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.