context: The verified motion plainly sets forth trial counsel's statements regarding his minimal efforts to investigate the cause of death, appellate counsel's ease in locating and securing controverting expert testimony, and Dr. Clarke's proposed testimony. Because Rodriguez's verified motion for new trial raises a particular matter that cannot be determined by the record and upon which relief may be granted, we hold Rodriguez's verified motion for new trial meets Reyes' requirements.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 26 S.W.3d 1, 4-5
citation_a.parenthetical: holding verified motion for new trial did not require a hearing because it "lacks sufficient detail to put the trial court on notice that reasonable grounds for relief exist"
citation_a.sentence: Cf. Alcott v. State, 26 S.W.3d 1, 4-5 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, pet. granted) (holding verified motion for new trial did not require a hearing because it “lacks sufficient detail to put the trial court on notice that reasonable grounds for relief exist”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 30 S.W.3d 692, 700
citation_b.parenthetical: "The judicially imposed requirement of an affidavit or verification as a prerequisite for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial has existed throughout the various incarnations of the governing precept."
citation_b.sentence: See Redmond v. State, 30 S.W.3d 692, 700 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet.) (“The judicially imposed requirement of an affidavit or verification as a prerequisite for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial has existed throughout the various incarnations of the governing precept.”) (emphasis added); Belton v. State, 900 S.W.2d 886, 901 (TexApp.—El Paso 1995, pet. refd) (“The Court has consistently held that without verification or affidavit, a motion for new trial based on matters outside the record is insufficient as a pleading.”) (emphasis added) (citing Bearden v. State, 648 S.W.2d 688, 690 (Tex.Crim.App.1983)).