




SEATON V. STATE



















COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH





NO. 2-03-487-CR





CHARLES DANDREAUN SEATON	APPELLANT

A/K/A CHARLES D. SEATON



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE



------------



FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY



------------



MEMORANDUM OPINION
(footnote: 1)


------------

Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his pretrial unsworn oral motion for continuance.  We affirm.

An unsworn oral motion for continuance preserves nothing for review.  
Dewberry v. State
, 4 S.W.3d 735, 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), 
cert. denied
, 529 U.S. 1131 (2000); 
Ricketts v. State
, 89 S.W.3d 312, 317 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d); 
Woodall v. State
, 77 S.W.3d 388, 401 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d).  Citing 
O’Rarden v. State
, 777 S.W.2d 455, 459 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, pet. ref’d), appellant argues that this rule applies only to statutory motions for continuance
(footnote: 2) and not to motions for continuance based on equitable principles.
(footnote: 3) 
 But this court, relying on 
Dewberry
, has already rejected that argument.  
See Ricketts
, 89 S.W.3d at 317; 
Woodall
, 77 S.W.3d at 401.  
But see Munoz v. State
, 24 S.W.3d 427, 430-32 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (acknowledging general rule that oral motion for continuance preserves nothing for review but addressing point on equitable grounds).  

Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM



PANEL F:	LIVINGSTON, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.



DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P.
 47.2(b)



DELIVERED:  February 3, 2005

FOOTNOTES
1:See
 
Tex. R. App. P.
 47.4.


2:See
 
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
 arts. 29.03, 29.08 (Vernon 1989).


3:Appellant did not state in his motion that it was based on the trial court’s equitable powers.


