NO. 07-11-00013-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
JANUARY 26, 2012
ESTEBAN HUERTA FLOREZ, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NO. 21,873-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Esteban Huerta Florez appeals from his jury conviction for the offense
of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon1 and the resulting twenty-year sentence
and $10,000 fine. Through one issue, appellant contends the trial court should have
granted his request for a new trial, or at least a hearing, when the complaining witness
admitted to testifying inaccurately at trial. We will affirm.
1
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West 2011).
Background
The complaining witness was appellant’s girlfriend. After a night out at local
bars, the couple argued, then fought. She testified that when the couple arrived home,
appellant took her into the bathroom and held her down and choked her. She fought
appellant, left the house and called 9-1-1 from a neighbor’s home. She returned home
after seeing appellant drive away. She testified appellant then returned to the home
and threatened her with a knife. On cross-examination she acknowledged that she
gave appellant’s investigator a different account of events because she did not want
appellant to get into trouble.
Two Amarillo police officers testified they saw appellant, through partially open
living room blinds, holding the victim down with his left arm across her chest, displaying
a knife in his right hand. Appellant still had the knife when officers forcibly entered the
house and did not drop it until threatened with a taser. Appellant also had a “box knife”
in his right front pocket. A physician testified to the victim’s injuries, which included a
broken nose and bite marks on both hands.
Appellant was convicted as indicted and punishment was assessed as noted, on
December 14, 2010. The victim later provided appellant’s appellate counsel an affidavit
in which she swore she testified inaccurately at trial. She stated she was very
intoxicated that night and she now believed “that I grabbed a knife after [appellant] left
the house to protect myself from [him] if he returned. When he did return, I brandished
the knife and [appellant] struggled with me and took the knife to prevent anyone being
harmed …I cannot be completely sure as my memory of that night is very limited, but I
2
do not believe [appellant] threatened me with the knife.” This affidavit was attached to
appellant’s motion for new trial filed January 31, 2011. The trial court heard appellant’s
motion on February 28, 2011. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the
motion. Appellant appeals that ruling.
Analysis
Through one issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion
for new trial without an evidentiary hearing2 based on the newly discovered evidence
that the victim in the case testified inaccurately at trial. The State argues appellant’s
motion for new trial was untimely, and therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction to rule
on it.
To be timely, a motion for new trial in a criminal case must be filed no later than
thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. Tex. R. App.
P. 21.4(a); Drew v. State, 743 S.W.2d 207, 222-23 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). This includes
motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Drew, 743 S.W.2d at 222-
23. Here, sentence was imposed on December 14, 2010 but the motion for new trial
was not filed until January 31, 2011. Because appellant filed his motion for new trial
more than thirty days after sentence was imposed, the motion was untimely and we
agree with the State the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider the motion. Tex. R.
App. P. 21.4(a); Drew, 743 S.W.2d at 222-23; Beathard v. State, 767 S.W.2d 423, 433
2
Appellant’s brief cites a docket sheet notation stating counsel for the State and
for appellant appeared and argued the new trial motion on February 28, and that the
motion was denied. Appellant then argues in his brief that he should have a “full
hearing,” which we interpret to mean an evidentiary hearing.
3
(Tex.Crim.App. 1989); Perez v. State, 261 S.W.3d 760, 771 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d) (collecting cases).
For that reason we resolve appellant’s sole issue against him and affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
4