IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00056-CR

NICHOLE D. JONES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 278th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 30645

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 23, 2023, appellant, Nichole D. Jones, filed a pro se notice of appeal 

challenging the trial court’s January 23, 2023 order denying a motion to recuse or 

disqualify. Finding that the order is not subject to an interlocutory appeal, we dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The procedures for recusal of judges are set forth in the rules of civil procedure 

and apply to criminal cases. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a; De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 
Jones v. State Page 2

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding); Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1993). An order denying a motion to recuse is reviewable only on appeal from a 

final judgment. TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A). Absent a timely appeal of a final conviction 

or one that disposes of all issues and parties in the case, the appellate court lacks 

jurisdiction over a trial court’s stand-alone order denying a motion to recuse. See Wright 

v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); see also Earbin v. State, No. 

05-17-01402-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 501, at **1-2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2018, no pet.) 

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Green v. State, 374 S.W.3d 434, 445 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2012)).

Additionally, an order denying a motion to disqualify is interlocutory and “may 

be reviewed by mandamus and may be appealed in accordance with other law.” See 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 Tex. App. LEXIS 6206, at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 8, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. 

op., not designated for publication) (citing Tijerina v. Conde, No. 13-16-00212-CV, 2016 

Tex. App. LEXIS 5281, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 19, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) 

(dismissing an interlocutory appeal because no law provides for an interlocutory appeal 

of an order denying a motion to disqualify); Gore v. Gore, No. 05-13-01025-CV, 2014 Tex. 

App. LEXIS 2971, at **3-4 (Tex. App.--Dallas Mar. 17, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same)); 

see Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589. Because there is no “other law” permitting the interlocutory 
Jones v. State Page 3

appeal of an order denying a motion to disqualify in a case such as this, the denial of the 

motion to disqualify may also be reviewed only upon appeal from a final judgment. See 

Gore, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 5218, at *4.

Appellant has not filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the denial of 

her motion to recuse or disqualify, nor is her appeal from a final judgment. Therefore, 

based on the foregoing, we dismiss appellant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding that we are dismissing this appeal, appellant may filed a motion 

for rehearing with this Court within fifteen days after the judgment of this Court is 

rendered. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. If appellant desires to have the decision of this Court 

reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that petition must be filed with the 

Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days after either the day this Court’s judgment 

is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this Court. See 

id. at R. 68.2(a).

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson,

and Justice Smith

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 15, 2023

Do not publish

[CR25]