Court Opinion

ID: 9951836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 13:12:44.690559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:55.153032
License: Public Domain

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 post-

conviction 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

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

                                                 -2-
                                                                                    04-22-00156-CR

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

                                                 -3-