Roman, Ernest v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 17, 2004
• Docket: 14-03-00404-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed August 17, 2004

Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed August 17, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-03-00404-CR

ERNEST ROMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 913,969

C O N C U R R I N G   O P I N I O N

In essence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant=s motion to recuse because: (1) Judge Harmon testified at the recusal hearing that he could consider the full range of punishment; and (2) the evidence was undisputed that he had consistently told the parties that he could do so.^[1]  Moreover, the comments relied upon by appellant (to show that Judge Harmon would not consider the full range of punishment) reflected only that he thought he would be less lenient than a jury in sentencing, but not that he could not, or would not, consider the full range of punishment in whatever sentencing decision he made.  I thus believe it is unnecessary (at best) to determine that Judge Harmon was biased at all, let alone whether as contemplated by case law or from non-judicial sources.^[2]

/s/        Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed August 17, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Seymore.  (Fowler, J., majority.)

---

^[1]           See, e.g., Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 211 (Tex. 2002) (noting that a trial court does not abuse its discretion if some evidence reasonably supports its decision).

^[2]           See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 (requiring court of appeals opinions to be as brief as practicable to address the issues necessary to disposition of the appeal).