Jasso, Roberto Delpilar

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NOS. PD-0601-20; PD-0602-20; PD-0603-20
ROBERTO DELPILAR JASSO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS
DALLAS COUNTY
Per curiam.
OPINION
Appellant was convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 99
years in prison. After the trial court denied his motions for new trial, he filed amended
motions for new trial. The judge denied those motions without a hearing. The Court of
Appeals affirmed, holding that, once the trial court denied Appellant’s initial motions for
JASSO - 2
new trial, Appellant “could no longer file” amended motions. Jasso v. State, No. 05-19-
00117-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 4278 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 9, 2020). The appellate
court relied on Rubio v. State, 596 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020).
Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review challenging the court’s analysis.
We recently reversed the Rubio opinion. Rubio v. State, No. PD-0234-20, 2022 Tex. Crim.
App. LEXIS 32 (Tex. Crim. App. January 22, 2022). In our opinion, we held that “Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 21.4(b) affords the trial court the discretion to grant leave of
court to allow a defendant to file an amended motion for new trial prior to the expiration of
the 30-day time period provided for in Rule 21.4(a), and that the court may do so regardless
of whether it has overruled a previous motion for new trial.”
The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our opinion in Rubio. Accordingly,
we grant Appellant’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of
Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals in light of our opinion in Rubio.
DATE DELIVERED: March 9, 2022
DO NOT PUBLISH