Mario S. Villanueva v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 290th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-06-00006-CR

Mario S. VILLANUEVA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-1269B

Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 13, 2006

AFFIRMED

The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for continuance. Having announced ready at a docket call, defense counsel filed a motion for continuance on the day of trial because his investigator had been unable to locate and interview two potential witnesses in the four days between the announcement and the date of trial. Apart from stating that the witnesses were present at the scene of the crime, which occurred one year before trial, and that the witnesses gave statements to the police, the motion for continuance does not provide any details with regard to the substance of the witnesses' testimony. Accepting that the motion was sufficient to preserve error, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion which failed to even generally aver the nature of the witnesses' expected testimony. Harrison v. State, 187 S.W.3d 429, 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (discussing preservation of error but finding no abuse of discretion where motion failed to list specific and material facts to which missing witness was expected to testify). The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Do Not Publish