in Re: Arthur Johnson

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 15, 2004

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 15, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NOS. 14-04-00519-CV &

      14-04-00520-CV

____________

IN RE ARTHUR JOHNSON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On May 28, 2004, relator filed two petitions for writ of mandamus in this Court.  See Tex. Gov=t. Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  Both petitions concern the trial court=s refusal to rule on relator=s motions to recuse filed in trial court cause nos. 03-15552 and 03-15552-A.  These motions were filed pursuant to Rule 18a.

Because the procedural requirements in Rule 18a are mandatory, a party who fails to conform to the requirements waives his right to complain of a judge=s failure to recuse himself.  Barron v. State Atty. Gen., 108 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. App.BTyler 2003, no pet.); Pena v. Pena, 986 S.W.2d 696, 701 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1998), pet. denied, 8 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. 1999).  Thus, the provisions of the rule obligating the trial judge either to recuse himself or refer the motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district never arise unless and until a formal timely, written and verified motion to recuse is filed.  Barron, 108 S.W.3d at 383.

We are unable to determine from the record before us whether relator=s motions to recuse were timely filed.  Additionally, the motions are not properly verified.  The affidavit attached to the motions speaks only to relator=s indigence.  Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in refusing to rule on relator=s recusal motions. 

We deny relator=s petitions for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Petitions Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 15, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Seymore.