I'm all confused, so I apologize if this comes out muddled.
Before the change to TRAP 21.3 gave trial courts the authority to grant a MNT on punishment-only, it was not error for a court to refuse to hold a hearing on a MNT that only raised punishment issues because it couldn't grant the motion anyway. That rule has gone away now that courts can grant it, of course. But what if you have a case that straddles the line? Say the motion was filed in December 06, the new law came into effect 1/1/07, and the motion is overruled by operation of law sometime later. Is it error not to hold a hearing where you can't grant the relief sought at the time the motion was filed but you gain that ability in the meantime?
Couple of thoughts that you've probably already considered:
1. Fowler applied a new harmless error standard to a defendant's pending appeal even though applying the old standard would've probably helped the defendant. Seems to suggest that the new rule would apply to your case even though it only became effective while the motion was pending.
2. Generally a new procedural rule shouldn't apply to a pending case if it interferes with a vested right, but this new rule helps the defendant in this case, so it doesn't interfere with a vested right.
These may be completely wrong, but I thought I would try to get the ball rolling.
|Powered by Social Strata
© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.