Anthony Alex Deleon v. State
This text of Anthony Alex Deleon v. State (Anthony Alex Deleon v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
..
CAUSE NO. CR-13-1992-C-R-B • Jl3MM FEB f 1 2015 tY'f 1
THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 2$TH DEBRA CROW u J~ d;)!1m9urt, GuadaJuPe Co Ti
® vs. DISTRICT COURT OF ANTHONY DELEON GUADALUPE COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT:
COMES NOW ANTHONY DELEON, hereinafter known as Defendant, by
and through his Attorney of Record, Mark Janssed, and files this
his Motion for New Trial, and for cause of which would show the following: I.
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 21, allows the filing
of a Motion for New Trial within thirty days of the date the trial court imposes sentence in open court. Sentence was imposed in open
court on January 28, 2015.
II.
As grounds for the granting of a new trial, D¢fendant, through his Attorney, alleges that any of the following occurred:
a) the defendant was unlawfully tried in absentia or was denied
counsel;
b) the court misdirected the jury about the law or committed some other material error that likely injured the defendant's rights; c) the verdict was decided by lot or in a manner ¢ther than a fair expression of the jurors' opinion; i I
d) a juror was bribed to convict or was guilty of ~ny other corrupt conduct;
I I ... 0 e) a material defense witness was kept from court by force,
threats, or fraud, or evidence tending to establish the defendant's
innocence was intentionally destroyed or withheld, thus preventing
its production at trial;
f) after retiring to deliberate, the jury received other evidence,
or a juror talked with anyone about the case, or ~ juror became so
intoxicated that his or her vote was probably ·influenced as a
result;
g) the jury engaged in such misconduct that the defendant did not
receive a fair and impartial trial;
h) the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence;
i) defendant's trial counsel was ineffective.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that a new
trial be granted. Respectfully submitted,
Mark Janssen\ Attorney for Defendant 110 East San Antonio San Marcos, Tex~s 78666 512-396-0066 512-396-0075 FAX Bar No. 10571950
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i I hereby certify that a true and correct copyiof the foregoing I
instrument was delivered to the office of the dis~rict attorney of !
Guadalupe County, Texas in accordance with thei Texas Rules of
Procedure on this the 11th day of February, 2015. ,,-- • 0 0
AoM a~ Mark Janssen\ Attorney for Defendant
l t
I ~·· .. 0 0 CAUSE NO. CR-13-1992-C-R-B THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 25TH JUDICIAL
vs. DISTRICT COURT OF ANTHONY DELEON GUADALUPE: COUNTY, TEXAS
0 R D E R
On this the day of
----- , came on to be heard the Motion for New Trial, and after
considering same, it is the opinion of the Courti that the Motion
should be:
GRANTED- - - - - '·
DENIED- - - - - -
PRESIDING JUD~E CAUSE NO. CR-13-1992-C-R-B
THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 25TH JUDICIAL vs. DISTRICT COURT OF
ANTHONY DELEON GUADALUPE: COUNTY, TEXAS 0 R D E R
----- , came on to be heard the Motion for New Trial, and after
considering same, it is the opinion of the Court. that the Motion
should be: GRANTED - - - - -; DENIED- - - - -
PRESIDING JUD~E !
i11011s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Anthony Alex Deleon v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-alex-deleon-v-state-texapp-2015.