 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Osborne v. Martin3/2/2000
1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, no pet.). The record before this court contains no request for a bench warrant and no evidence that the trial court ruled on any request that Osborne be present at the hearing. Thus, any error was not preserved for review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. See also Conely v. Peck, 929 S.W.2d 630, 633 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, no writ) (where record contains no motion for bench warrant and no record of trial court's ruling on such motion, court presumes record supports judgment); Huizar v. State, 841 S.W.2d 875, 877 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1992, no pet.) (where record shows no indication that bench warrant for motion to appear at hearing on motion for new trial was requested, court did not err by allowing motion to be overruled by operation of law).
Furthermore, " iven that a prisoner has no right to appear in court in a civil case he has initiated, it follows he must justify his personal appearance." Pedraza v. Crossroads Sec. Systems, 960 S.W.2d 339, 342 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.). See also Byrd v. Attorney General of State of Tex., Crime Victims Compensation Div., 877 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1994, no pet.). Osborne's brief offers no facts not in evidence relating to the merits of the motion determined by the trial court. Accordingly, we are unable to say the trial court's failure to secure Osborne's appearance is reversible error. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a).
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on February 24, 2000
Do Not Publish
Page 1 2 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|