Muqtasid Abdul Qadir v. The State of Texas Appeal from 213th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-20-00076-CR ___________________________ MUQTASID ABDUL QADIR, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 213th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 0591998D Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Muqtasid Abdul Qadir attempts to appeal from the February 19, 2020 order signed by Judge David L. Evans, Presiding Judge of the Eighth Administrative Judicial Region of Texas, denying Appellant’s motion to recuse the trial judge.1 On April 8, 2020, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the stand-alone interlocutory order denying the recusal motion is not appealable. See, e.g., Fineberg v. State, No. 05-20-00163-CR, 2020 WL 2110667, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 4, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Mediano v. State, No. 03-20-00176-CR, 2020 WL 1792218, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We stated that unless Appellant or any party filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before Monday, April 20, 2020, the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Appellant has not filed a response. Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders absent express statutory authorization. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Mediano, 2020 WL 1792218, at *1. No statute authorizes an appeal from a stand-alone order denying a motion to recuse. Fineberg, 2020 WL 2110667, at *4. More than twenty years ago, Appellant was convicted of murdering his girlfriend. In March 2020, this court affirmed the September 4, 2019 denial of his fourth motion for postconviction DNA testing. See Qadir v. State, No. 02-19-00377-CR, 2020 WL 1174000, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 12, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 1 2 Further, Rule of Civil Procedure 18a, which applies in criminal cases, DeLeon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (orig. proceeding), indicates that interlocutory appeals from orders denying recusal are not allowed. Specifically, Rule 18a(j)(1)(A) provides that “[a]n 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) (emphases added); see Green v. State, 374 S.W.3d 434, 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (dismissing appeal from order denying recusal of trial judge who determined defendant’s competency to be executed and holding that order denying recusal could be reviewed only on appeal from final judgment determining competency). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: September 10, 2020 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.
