Judicial Rating of the First and Second Court of Appeals in Texas Takes a Plunge in 2021. Why?

Joyner v. State, No. 01-18-00875-CR

(Tex. App. May 4, 2021)

REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 14, 2021

Maybe it’s Imposter Related?

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Currently pending before this Court is appellant David Lorenza Joyner’s pro se “Motion and Affidavit for the Recusal of the Entire First Court of Appeals from Presiding Over the Appeal . . . And for the Appeal to Be Transferred to the 14th Court of Appeals.”

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.3 prescribes the procedure to be followed for recusal of an appellate justice:

Before any further proceeding in the case, the challenged justice or judge must either remove himself or herself from all participation in the case or certify the matter to the entire court, which will decide the motion by a majority of the remaining judges sitting en banc. The challenged justice or judge must not sit with the remainder of the court to consider the motion as to him or her.

TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b).

When, as in this case, a party challenges all the members of the court, the court decides the motion under the procedures set forth in Rule 16.3. See id.; see, e.g., Cameron v. Greenhill, 582 S.W.2d 775, 775-77 (Tex. 1979) (denying motion to disqualify entire Texas Supreme Court); Cogsdil v. Jimmy Fincher Body Shop, LLC, No. 07-16-00303-CV, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 12, 2016, order) (treating recusal motion as addressed to entire court).

Accordingly, upon the filing of appellant’s motion and before any further proceedings in this appeal, each of the challenged justices of this Court considered the motion in chambers. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); see also Cogsdil, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1; Cannon v. City of Hurst, 180 S.W.3d 600, 601 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, order).

Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris each found no reason to recuse themselves and certified the matter to the remaining members of the en banc court.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); Cogsdil, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1; Cannon, 180 S.W.3d at 601.

Harriet Nicholson’s Bold Step: Seeking Judicial Impartiality and a Fair Hearing in Texas Courts

Motion to Recuse in Texas Courts: Remember, as Justice Frankfurter indicated, litigants are not helpless before usurping courts.

This Court then followed the accepted procedure set out in Rule 16.3.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b);

Cannon, 180 S.W.3d at 601.

The justices deliberated and decided the motion to recuse with respect to each challenged justice by a vote of the remaining participating justices en banc.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b);

Cogsdil, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1;

Cannon, 180 S.W.3d at 601.

No challenged justice sat with the other members of the Court when his or her challenge was considered.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b);

Manges v. Guerra, 673 S.W.2d 180, 185 (Tex. 1984);

Cogsdil, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1;

McCullough v. Kitzman, 50 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, order).

Or Maybe the Corruption re Texas Lyin’, Stealin’, Cheatin’ Attorney General Ken Paxton  and the delayed Venue Rulings from COA1

Having considered the motion as to each challenged justice , and finding no basis for recusal, appellant’s motion to recuse is denied with respect to each challenged justice . See Manges, 673 S.W.2d at 185; McCullough, 50 S.W.3d at 89. The Court enters the following orders:

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO CHIEF JUSTICE RADACK
To the extent that appellant’s motion requests recusal of Chief Justice Radack, it is ordered that the motion is denied.

The Court consists of: Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE KELLY
To the extent that appellant’s motion requests recusal of Justice Kelly, it is ordered that the motion is denied.

The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman, Landau, Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE GOODMAN
To the extent that appellant’s motion requests recusal of Justice Goodman, it is ordered that the motion is denied.

The Court consists of: Court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Landau, Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE LANDAU
To the extent that appellant’s motion requests recusal of Justice Landau, it is ordered that the motion is denied.

The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE HIGHTOWER
To the extent that appellant’s motion requests recusal of Justice Hightower, it is ordered that the motion is denied.

The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE COUNTISS
To the extent that appellant’s motion requests recusal of Justice Countiss, it is ordered that the motion is denied.

The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE RIVAS-MOLLOY
To the extent that appellant’s motion requests recusal of Justice Rivas-Molloy, it is ordered that the motion is denied.

The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower, Countiss, Guerra, and Farris.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE GUERRA
To the extent that appellant’s motion requests recusal of Justice Guerra, it is ordered that the motion to recuse is denied.

The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE FARRIS
To the extent that appellant’s motion requests recusal of Justice Farris , it is ordered that the motion to recuse is denied.

The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.