Curtis Allen Garrison v. The State of Texas Appeal from 163rd District Court of Orange County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-17-00363-CR ____________________ CURTIS ALLEN GARRISON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 163rd District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. B130137-R MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Curtis Allen Garrison, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal an “Order Denying Motion For Recusal Of Judge” entered on August 17, 2017. (NOA p. 2) On September 27, 2017, the Clerk of this Court notified the parties that it appeared that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order and requested the parties file a written response containing argument and supporting authority by Thursday, October 12, 2017, showing that our jurisdiction over this appeal has been established or we would dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 1 Appellant has failed to respond to the Court's directive. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. The notice of appeal seeks to appeal the denial of a motion to recuse. The procedures for recusal of judges, in both civil and criminal cases, is set out in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a; Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Under Rule 18a, an “order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A). Nothing in the rule confers a right to an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to recuse. “We have no jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders except in narrow circumstances not present here.” Means v. State, 825 S.W.2d 260, 260 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (dismissing interlocutory appeal from order denying motion for recusal for lack of jurisdiction). Accordingly, we hold the order from which the appellant appeals is not appealable. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice 2 Submitted on October 31, 2017 Opinion Delivered November 1, 2017 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
