Rubio v. Texas (original by judge yeary)
Annotate this CaseIn 2018, Appellant Christopher Rubio was convicted by a jury of the capital murder of the mother of his children and her new boyfriend. Because the State had not sought the death penalty, Appellant was automatically sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On the same day the verdict was rendered, and the sentence was pronounced, Appellant filed a general form motion for new trial, challenging the verdict as contrary to the law and the evidence. The motion was filed for the purpose of giving the court reporter more time to file the record with the court of appeals. The trial court promptly overruled it. Exactly thirty days later, Appellant, represented by new counsel, filed a motion for leave to file an amended motion for new trial along with an amended motion for new trial. The latter motion alleged new grounds upon which Appellant sought a new trial. He also filed eleven additional exhibits in support of his amended motion. The State objected, arguing that the amended motion was untimely and that the trial court should take no action on it. Nevertheless, seventy-two days after the sentence was pronounced, the trial court conducted a hearing on the amended motion. The State again objected that the amended motion was untimely. The State’s objection was overruled, and the trial court heard evidence on the motion. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the amended motion on the merits. The question presented for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' review was what happens when a defendant timely files a motion for new trial, the trial court overrules that motion, and then the defendant tries to file an amended motion, all within the same 30-day window of time within which motions for new trial are permitted to be filed. Is a trial court vested with discretion to grant leave of court permitting a defendant to file an amended motion for new trial even after the trial court has overruled an initial motion for new trial? We conclude that the trial court does have that discretion. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.
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.