Ex Parte Charles Laymon Cox

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 16, 2012
• Docket: 02-11-00551-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

02-11-551-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00551-CR

Ex parte Charles Laymon Cox

----------

FROM THE 213th District Court OF Tarrant COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

          Charles Laymon Cox attempts to appeal the November 29, 2011 denial of his motion to recuse the Honorable Judge Louis E. Sturns from presiding over the evidentiary hearing on his habeas corpus application filed pursuant to article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure.  See Ex parte Sinegar, 324 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (holding that rule of civil procedure 18a applies in habeas proceedings that occur before the trial court).

          On January 6, 2012, we sent Cox a letter stating our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because he did not appear to be appealing from a judgment or other appealable order.  See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (“We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted to us by law.”); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A) (“An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.” (emphasis added)).

          We instructed Cox or any party desiring to continue the appeal to file a response by January 23, 2012, showing grounds for continuing the appeal or the appeal would be dismissed.  See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.  Cox filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.  Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL:  GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  February 16, 2012

---

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.