MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00579-CR

Kristy Dawn ANDERS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4513

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 6, 2011

AFFIRMED

This appeal arises out of a criminal conviction for the offense of forgery. After pleading 

guilty to the offense, appellant Kristy Anders was placed on deferred adjudication community 

supervision for five years. The State subsequently moved for the trial court to adjudicate Anders 

guilty of the underlying offense after she allegedly violated the terms of her community 

supervision. 
04-10-00579-CR

- 2 -

At the beginning of the hearing on the State’s motion, defense counsel orally moved 

Judge N. Keith Williams to recuse himself. Defense counsel requested Judge Williams to recuse 

himself because he believed Judge Williams had engaged in improper ex parte communications 

with a potential witness. Judge Williams, however, refused to recuse and proceeded with the 

hearing on the State’s motion. Anders ultimately pleaded true to violating the terms of her 

community supervision, and the trial court adjudicated Anders guilty of the underlying offense

and sentenced her to six months imprisonment. We affirm.

“The procedures for recusal of judges set out in Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure apply in criminal cases.” De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2004). Rule 18a provides: 

At least ten days before the date set for trial or other hearing in any court other 

than the Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals or the court of appeals, 

any party may file with the clerk of the court a motion stating grounds why the 

judge before whom the case is pending should not sit in the case. The grounds 

may include any disability of the judge to sit in the case. The motion shall be 

verified and must state with particularity the grounds why the judge before whom 

the case is pending should not sit. The motion shall be made on personal 

knowledge and shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence 

provided that facts may be stated upon information and belief if the grounds of 

such belief are specifically stated.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(a). “If a party does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule

18a, [s]he waives h[er] right to complain of a judge’s refusal to recuse himself.” Gill v. Tex. 

Dep’t of Criminal Justice, Institutional Div., 3 S.W.3d 576, 579 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

1999, no pet.); see Carson v. Serrano, 96 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. 

denied); Bruno v. State, 916 S.W.2d 4, 7-8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref’d).

Defense counsel did not file a written motion for recusal in the case at bar; instead, 

defense counsel orally moved Judge Williams to recuse himself. An oral motion, however, does 

not satisfy the requirements of Rule 18a. Goodson v. State, No. 06-05-00107-CR, 2006 WL 
04-10-00579-CR

- 3 -

1888722, at *3 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication); Barron v. State Attorney Gen., 108 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003, no 

pet.). Because defense counsel’s oral motion did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 

18a, we must conclude that Anders waived her right to complain about Judge William’s refusal 

to recuse himself. Anders’s sole issue on appeal is therefore overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH