presented by the facts of this case, the majority opinion correctly reserves judgment as to that matter for another day. Although I join this Court’s majority opinion’s holding that a trial court generally has continuing authority to rescind its order granting a new trial, I observe that a trial court must always proceed cautiously when either granting or denying a motion for new trial because there are limitations to the grounds upon which a trial court may properly grant a new trial. Recently, in State v. Thomas, this Court reaffirmed the principle that “[tjhere must be some legal basis underpinning the grant of a new trial,” and a trial court may not grant a new trial for a “non-legal or a legally invalid reason.” See State v. Thomas, 428 S.W.3d 99, 104, 105, 107 (Tex.Crim.App.2014) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); see also Tex.R.App. P.
holding that the trial court can and should grant a new trial if the manifest weight of the evidence is contrary to the verdict holding that posttrial motion for new trial is critical stage requiring counsel or valid waiver 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 to grant a new trial the error must be more than harmless holding that motion for a new trial whether for guilt or punishment requires a valid legal claim a court cannot grant a new trial unless the defendant shows that he is entitled to one under the law