Kevin Scott v. The State of Texas Appeal from 104th District Court of Taylor County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed February 24, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-17-00032-CR ___________ KEVIN SCOTT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18616-B MEMORANDUM OPINION Kevin Scott has filed a pro se notice of appeal on motion to recuse. Appellant’s motion to recuse related to a postconviction habeas corpus that was filed in the trial court. We dismiss the appeal. The clerk of this court wrote Appellant on February 6, 2017, and informed him that it did not appear that the order denying the motion to recuse was an appealable order. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. We have received a response from Appellant in which he explains that he “is appealing the order of Judge Charles Chapman,” an order in which the judge denied Appellant’s motion to recuse. First, we note that an order denying a motion to recuse is not a final, appealable order; it may be reviewed only in an appeal from a final judgment. Green v. State, 374 S.W.3d 434, 445 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). An appeal of the decision to deny a motion to recuse, standing alone, would be improper. Id. Second, we note that the order from which Appellant attempts to appeal appears to relate to an Article 11.07 writ of habeas corpus that was filed by Appellant. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015). Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction over postconviction relief from final felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. §§ 3, 5; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (only Court of Criminal Appeals has authority to grant postconviction relief from final felony convictions). There is no role for the courts of appeals in the procedure under Article 11.07. See CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). For the above reasons, we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM February 24, 2017 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 2
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.
