The State of Texas v. Adney Sadakhoune--Appeal from 108th District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-05-0435-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
NOVEMBER 9, 2006
______________________________
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellant
v.
ADNEY SADAKHOUNE,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 49,107-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
The State of Texas appeals from an order granting Adney Sadakhoune a new trial.
Through the three issues before us, it contends that the trial court abused its discretion in
so ordering. We reverse the order for reasons other than those propounded by the State.
According to the record before us, the trial court adjudicated Sadakhoune’s guilt and
sentenced him in open court on October 6, 2005. He timely moved for a new trial, and the
motion was heard on November 28, 2005. At the end of the hearing, the trial court agreed
to grant the motion. However, it did not sign a written order manifesting that decision until
February 8, 2006.
Neither an oral order nor a docket entry is effective to grant a motion for new trial.
See TEX . R. APP. P. 21.8(b); State v. Garza, 931 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
Instead, a new trial may only be granted through the execution of a written order. State v.
Garza, 931 S.W.2d at 562. Moreover, once a motion for new trial is overruled by operation
of law, the trial court loses jurisdiction to act upon it. Id. Finally, a motion for new trial is
overruled by operation of law if it is not granted by written order within 75 days after
imposing or suspending sentence in open court. TEX . R. APP. P. 21.8(a).
Here, the record discloses that the trial court did not execute a written order granting
Sadakhoune’s motion for new trial until February 8, 2006. Yet, it was previously overruled
by operation of law on December 20, 2005, for that date represents the 75th day from the
time Sadakhoune was sentenced in open court. So, because the motion was previously
overruled by operation of law, the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant it on February 8th,
despite its oral pronouncement at the November hearing. State v. Garza, supra.
Consequently, the order granting new trial is void, and we reverse it.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2
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.
