may be granted, we hold Rodriguez’s verified motion for new trial meets Reyes’ requirements. 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)). Cf. Alcott v. State, 26 S.W.3d 1, 4-5 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, pet. granted) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion Rodriguez’s detailed and verified
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 holding that a plaintiff cannot be denied a new trial for failing to establish sufficient proof to meet a standard which at the time of trial did not exist 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 holding events occurring after trial are not grounds for a new trial holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for new trial on perjury grounds