Clayton Marquis Ricks v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                     In The
    Court of Appeals
    Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
    No. 06-13-00170-CR
    CLAYTON MARQUIS RICKS, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 102nd District Court
    Red River County, Texas
    Trial Court No. CR01943
    Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Clayton Marquis Ricks appeals from his conviction by a jury of the offense of burglary of
    a habitation. Ricks argues that the trial court erred in denying his oral motion for continuance.
    The request for a continuance was prompted by the State’s presentation to defense counsel after
    jury selection, of a written statement made by Ricks. Ricks promptly requested a continuance,
    which was denied by the trial court. We find that error was not preserved and affirm the
    judgment of the trial court.
    Ricks’ motion for continuance was read into the record by Ricks’ counsel, but there is
    nothing in the record to suggest that it was written or sworn to by Ricks. The Texas Court of
    Criminal Appeals recently reaffirmed that a written, sworn motion for continuance is required by
    statute and that, without such a motion, no error is preserved for appellate review. Blackshear v.
    State, 
    385 S.W.3d 589
    , 590–91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
    Thus, by failing to file a written, sworn motion requesting a continuance, Ricks forfeited
    his right to challenge the trial court’s denial of a continuance. 
    Id. at 591;
    Anderson v. State, 
    301 S.W.3d 276
    , 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 29.03, 29.08
    (West 2006) (trial court may grant continuance only upon written motion, sworn to by State or
    defendant, setting forth sufficient cause).
    Where an issue has not been properly preserved for appeal, the court of appeals may not
    address the merits of that issue. 
    Blackshear, 385 S.W.3d at 591
    . The contention of error is
    overruled.
    2
    The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Jack Carter
    Justice
    Date Submitted:      May 22, 2014
    Date Decided:        June 13, 2014
    Do Not Publish
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-13-00170-CR

Filed Date: 6/13/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015