Richard King v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 6th District Court of Lamar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-08-00127-CR ______________________________ RICHARD KING, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 16606 HC-7 Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Richard King has filed an attempted interlocutory appeal from an order by an appointed judge denying his motion to recuse the sitting judge in the prosecution against him. The procedures for recusal of judges set out in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply in criminal cases. De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (holding Rule 18a applicable to criminal cases).1 As a general rule, an appellate court may consider appeals by criminal defendants only after conviction. See Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Tex. App. Austin 1997, no pet.). Intermediate appellate courts have no jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders absent express authority. See TEX . R. APP . P. 25.2(b)(2); Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). In this case, we have no authority to consider such an interlocutory appeal, and Rule 18a(f) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure states that a denial of the motion may be reviewed by appeal from the final judgment. See TEX . R. CIV . P. 18a(f). We do not have jurisdiction to review the propriety of a denial of a motion to recuse via interlocutory appeal. See TEX . R. CIV . P. 18a(f); Rio Grande Valley Gas Co. v. City of Pharr, 962 S.W.2d 631, 638 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1997, writ dism'd w.o.j.). 1 The refusal of a defendant's motion to disqualify is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. TEX . R. CIV . P. 18a(f); Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 2 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: June 30, 2008 July 1, 2008 Do Not Publish 3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.
