Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00156-CR

James STRIBLIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR8935

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 13, 2024

AFFIRMED

Appellant James Striblin challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion for postconviction DNA testing. We affirm the trial court’s order.

BACKGROUND

Striblin was convicted of murder on December 7, 2017, and we affirmed his conviction in 

2019. See Striblin v. State, No. 04-17-00826-CR, 2019 WL 1049233, at *1 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio Mar. 6, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). After we affirmed his 
04-22-00156-CR

- 2 -

conviction, Striblin filed at least two motions to recuse the Honorable Jefferson Moore, the judge 

who had presided over his trial, from hearing his post-conviction motions. 

On April 23, 2020, Striblin filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing. On February 

11, 2022, Judge Moore signed an order denying Striblin’s motion for DNA testing. Striblin then 

timely filed this appeal.

ANALYSIS

In his sole issue on appeal, Striblin argues Judge Moore’s February 11, 2022 order denying 

his motion for DNA testing is void because Judge Moore recused himself on December 3, 2021. 

An appellant’s brief must “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with 

appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Here, Striblin cites 

no portion of the record to support his assertion that Judge Moore recused himself. Because Striblin

failed to adequately brief this issue, he has waived it. See, e.g., Crawford v. State, 595 S.W.3d 792, 

801 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2019, pet. ref’d); State v. Villegas, 506 S.W.3d 717, 748 (Tex. 

App.—El Paso 2016, pet. dism’d).

Moreover, even if we assume Striblin adequately briefed this issue, the record does not 

support it. As the State notes, the record contains no indication that Judge Moore recused himself. 

Instead, the record shows that on December 3, 2021, Judge Moore declined to recuse himself and 

requested the assignment of a different judge to hear Striblin’s recusal motions “pursuant to Rule 

18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(f)(1) (when recusal motion is 

filed, respondent judge must either voluntarily recuse or request assignment of another judge to 

hear the motion); see also De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (orig. 

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

Procedure apply in criminal cases.”). The assigned judge, the Honorable Sid L. Harle, denied 

Striblin’s motions to recuse Judge Moore on December 29, 2021. Judge Harle’s order specifically 
04-22-00156-CR

- 3 -

notes, “Judge Moore declined to voluntarily recuse himself.” Accordingly, the record does not 

support Striblin’s contention that Judge Moore recused himself before he signed the order denying 

Striblin’s request for DNA testing. See Rodriguez v. State, 459 S.W.3d 184, 195 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2015, pet. ref’d) (overruling argument that was contrary to record). Because Striblin does 

not present any further arguments to support his contention that the challenged order is void or 

otherwise constitutes reversible error, we overrule his sole issue. See id.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s order.

Beth Watkins, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH