third issue, Penright asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to conduct a hearing on his motion for new trial and motion in arrest of judgment. The record reflects that the trial court had scheduled a hearing on the motion for new trial but was unable to conduct the hearing as anticipated due to scheduling conflicts. As a result, Penrighf s motion for new trial was overruled by-operation of law. We abated this appeal and ordered the trial court to hold a hearing on the motion for new trial. The trial court held a hearing, and we have considered the record from that hearing on appeal. Therefore Penrighf s third issue is moot. See Highfill v. State, No. 03-00-00126-CR, 2001 WL 520978, at *10 (Tex.App.-Austin May 17, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). We overrule Penrighf s' third issue.
holding appellants issue was rendered moot because appellant was given the opportunity to make a record in support of his motion for new trial and appellate court considered that record in disposing of only issue raised in the motion for new trial holding issue not properly before the appellate court where appellant fails to demonstrate where in the record an issue was raised in the district court holding that because defendant never mentioned brady in motion for new trial appellate court would not consider the issue holding where record fails to establish whether and how appellant presented motion for new trial to the trial court it was not timely presented holding that if appellant preserves legal sufficiency complaint in motion for new trial new trial is all the relief appellate court can give because that is all the relief appellant requested in trial court