Legal Opinion

Ramirez v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District

Decided May 28, 1992No. 13-91-226-CRPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA, Jr., Justice.

Rodolfo Ramirez appeals the denial of his motion for new trial. By a single point of error, he complains that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion after he produced newly discovered evidence. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence or newly available evidence are not favored and are viewed with great caution. Drew v. State, 743 S.W.2d 207, 225 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Dedesma v. State, 806 S.W.2d 928, 934 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref’d). A motion for new trial based on…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ramirez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
  2. Jones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1986
  3. Etter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984
  4. Dedesma v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1991
  5. Sambrano v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1988

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Burdick v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2015
  2. Robbins v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)1993
  3. Lopez v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1999
  4. Allen Andre Causey v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1994
  5. George Reyna v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1997

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API