Opinion ID: 4043495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: clear entitlement to relief

Text: The right to an impartial judge is a fundamental one. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 308 (199l)(infraction of right to an impartial judge at trial can never be treated as harmless error); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 535 ( 1927)(due process right to impartial judge exists regardless of the strength of the evidence); See also Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009). -12- Texas recusallaw provides protection for a litigant's right to an impartial judge, providing for the disqualification of a judge who has an interest in the subject matter of a case or is sufficiently closely related to any of the parties, TEX. R. CIV. P. I8b(a)(2) and (3), and for the recusal of a judge for various reasons that might have a bearing on the judge's ability to preside with fairness over a case: TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b(b)(I )-(8). 10 This Court has recognized that the protections ofTEX. R. CIV. P. I8a and I8b extends to criminal proceedings, including habeas proceedings in the trial court: Gaal v. State, 332 S. W.3d 448, 452-3 n. I2 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 I I); Ex parte Sinegar, 324 S. W.3d 578, 58 I (Tex. Crim. App. 20 I 0). Mr. Garza sought recusal of Judge Gonzalez on two grounds under TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b, namely that: • [T]he judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, TEX. R. CIV. P. I8b (b)(I); and • (T]he judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding, TEX. R. CIV. P. I 8b (b)(3 ). 11 10 See also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 30.0I (no judge may sit in criminal case where he is the injured party, has been counsel to either party or is connected to either the defendant or the complainant by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree). No allegation ofpersonal bias or prejudice under TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b (b)(2) was made against Judge Gonzalez. -13-
CASE, WOULD REASONABLY DOUBT JUDGE GONZALEZ'S ABILITY TO ADJUDICATE THE RELEVANT CLAIMS IMPARTIALLY. 1. The Legal Standard for Deciding Whether a Judge's Impartiality Might Reasonably Be Questioned. Judges normally enjoy a presumption that they will perform their roles impartially. Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191, 198 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 2007). That presumption may be rebutted. ld This Court's most recent substantive decision concerning recusallaw in Texas, Gaa/ v. State, 332 S. W.3d