Marcus Tyrone Grant v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 26, 2024
• Docket: 01-24-00810-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued November 26, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00808-CR NO. 01-24-00810-CR ——————————— MARCUS TYRONE GRANT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 506th District Court Waller County, Texas Trial Court Case Nos. 24-08-19233 & 24-08-19271

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant attempts to appeal from a pretrial order denying his motion to

recuse the presiding judge. The State has filed a motion to dismiss these two appeals,

arguing that this interlocutory order is not appealable. Appellant has not responded

to this motion. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeals. The clerk’s records have not yet been filed. The State asserts that appellant is

charged with two counts of manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance greater

than one gram and less than four grams, one count of possession of a prohibited

substance in a correctional facility, and one count of possession of a controlled

substance greater than four grams and less than 200 grams. The State also asserts

that the indictments contain enhancement paragraphs. The State has attached a copy

of appellant’s filing in the trial court entitled “Mandatory Disqualification of Sitting

District Judge and Appointed Public Defender.” In his notices of appeal, appellant

states that he is appealing from the September 27, 2024 order of the Honorable

Robert H. Trapp, Presiding Judge of the Second Administrative Judicial Region,

which denied appellant’s motion to disqualify the trial court judge in these two cases.

Attached to appellant’s notices of appeal are copies of the trial court’s order,

dated September 25, 2024, in which the trial court declined to recuse himself and

referred the motions to the Presiding Judge of the Second Administrative Judicial

Region for assignment of a judge to hear the motions. Also attached to appellant’s

notices of appeal is a copy of the order signed September 27, 2024 by the Presiding

Judge, denying the motions to disqualify and stating that the motions do not state

legally sufficient grounds for disqualification and are procedurally deficient.

An order denying a motion for recusal or disqualification of the trial judge is

interlocutory. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A); Means v. State, 825 S.W.2d 260,

2 260 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.). “An order granting or denying

a motion to disqualify may be reviewed by mandamus and may be appealed in

accordance with other law.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(2). “There is no ‘other law’

allowing an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to disqualify in a

criminal case.” Muhammad v. State, No. 08-18-00125-CR, 2018 WL 3751742, at

*1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 8, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for

publication). This Court has jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in criminal

cases only in narrow circumstances that are not present here. See Means, 825

S.W.2d at 260. Because the orders denying disqualification are interlocutory and

not reviewable until after final judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the

appeals. See Lara v. State, No. 01-18-00404-CR, 2018 WL 4128091, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication).

Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and we dismiss the appeals for lack

of jurisdiction. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed

as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).