Marcell Lakeist Williams v. The State of Texas Appeal from 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion by whitehill)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed October 19, 2020 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-01022-CR MARCELL LAKEIST WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1642251-U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Pedersen, III, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Whitehill Appellant Marcell Lakeist Williams pled guilty to burglary of a habitation and pled true to one enhancement paragraph. A jury found him guilty and assessed punishment at seventy years in prison. On appeal, appellant raises one issue complaining that the trial court erred by denying the oral continuance motion his lawyer made on the first day of trial and renewed the next day. We overrule the issue and affirm because error was not preserved. I. ANALYSIS Appellant’s brief cites a sworn continuance motion he filed about four months before trial began, but that motion didn’t preserve the error he asserts on appeal. First, the record contains no express ruling on appellant’s sworn motion, and, to the extent a ruling can be implied from the record, it appears the trial court granted the motion. Specifically, appellant’s January 19, 2018 motion recited that (i) the case was set for trial on January 29, 2018, and (ii) appellant’s lawyer needed a continuance of unspecified duration to prepare for trial based on discovery she had recently received and concerns about appellant’s mental health. The case wasn’t tried until mid-May 2018. Moreover, appellant’s appellate complaint wasn’t raised in his written motion. Rather, on appeal he argues that the trial court erroneously denied an oral continuance motion that his lawyer made off the record on the first day of trial during a break in voir dire and then repeated on the record on the second day of trial. Appellant’s lawyer explained that, during lunch on the first day of trial, she and the State learned that a drop of blood found at the crime scene had been swabbed but never tested. The trial judge denied appellant’s oral motion, noting that the blood’s presence was indicated in the probable cause affidavit. Appellant’s appellate argument repeats his oral continuance motion’s substance. Because his appellate argument doesn’t comport with his written, sworn continuance motion, it wasn’t preserved by that motion. See Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. –2– 2012) (“The point of error on appeal must comport with the objection made at trial.”). Finally, under settled law, appellant’s unsworn oral continuance motion itself did not preserve error. See Blackshear v. State, 385 S.W.3d 589, 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“[A]n unsworn oral [continuance] motion preserves nothing for appeal.”); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 29.08 (all continuance motions must be sworn). II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. /Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) 191022F.U05 –3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MARCELL LAKEIST WILLIAMS, Appellant No. 05-19-01022-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1642251-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Pedersen, III and Reichek participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered October 19, 2020. –4–
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
