ROBERT RUCKER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion filed November 22, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-88-01279-CR
............................
ROBERT RUCKER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 9
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. MB86-60046-K
.................................................................
OPINION PER CURIAM
Before Justices McClung, Lagarde and Ovard
        Robert Rucker was convicted of the offense of driving while intoxicated. Punishment was assessed at five days' confinement and a $1,000 fine, probated for twenty-four months. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for continuance. We overrule his point and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
        The record reflects that after both the State and appellant had closed, appellant orally moved that he be allowed to reopen the evidence to present the testimony of another witness. Counsel was not sure of the nature of the testimony or whether it would be admissible; he requested that he be allowed to call her to the stand to determine whether her testimony would be admissible. In order to do so, he needed a forty-five minute continuance. In addition, he indicated to the court that he had known of the witness at the time of appellant's previous trial. The trial court denied his request to reopen the evidence, and his oral request for a forty-five minute continuance. The record does not reflect that appellant ever filed a written motion for continuance.
        A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Hightower v. State, 629 S.W.2d 920, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Garcia v. State, 581 S.W.2d 168, 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). There is no abuse of discretion in failing to grant an oral motion for continuance. Hightower, 629 S.W.2d at 926; Rosales v. State, 473 S.W.2d 474, 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). Because appellant did not make a written motion for continuance, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for continuance. Appellant's point of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
                                                  PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
        
881279.U05
 
 
File Date[11-22-89]
File Name[881279]