Opinion
No. 2-03-487-CR
Delivered: February 3, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
Appeal from the 372nd District Court of Tarrant County.
Paul A. Conner, Fort Worth, TX, for Appellant. Tim Curry, Criminal District Attorney, Charles M. Mallin, Sylvia Mandel, Theresa E. Austin, and Mark A. Thielman, Assistant Criminal District Attorneys, Fort Worth, TX, for State.
Panel F: LIVINGSTON, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex.R.App.P. 47.4.
Appellant's sole issue on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his pretrial unsworn oral motion for continuance. We affirm. An unsworn oral motion for continuance preserves nothing for review. Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 755 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 (2000); Ricketts v. State, 89 S.W.3d 312, 317 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Woodall v. State, 77 S.W.3d 388, 401 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd). Citing O'Rarden v. State, 777 S.W.2d 455, 459 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, pet. ref'd), appellant argues that this rule applies only to statutory motions for continuance and not to motions for continuance based on equitable principles. But this court, relying on Dewberry, has already rejected that argument. See Ricketts, 89 S.W.3d at 317; Woodall, 77 S.W.3d at 401. But see Munoz v. State, 24 S.W.3d 427, 430-32 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (acknowledging general rule that oral motion for continuance preserves nothing for review but addressing point on equitable grounds). Accordingly, we overrule appellant's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 29.03, 29.08 (Vernon 1989).
Appellant did not state in his motion that it was based on the trial court's equitable powers.