Court Opinion

ID: 9380429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-18 06:08:49.313591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:24.984472
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed March 16, 2023

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   ___________

                               No. 11-23-00024-CR
                                   ___________

                     JOHN LOUIS ATKINS, Appellant
                                         V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 104th District Court
                             Taylor County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 20,106-B

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      John Louis Atkins has filed a pro se notice of appeal from an order denying
his motion to recuse. Appellant’s motion to recuse related to a postconviction habeas
corpus that was filed in the trial court. We dismiss the appeal.
      The clerk of this court wrote Appellant on February 7, 2023, and informed
him that it did not appear that the order denying the motion to recuse was an
appealable order. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to
continue the appeal. We have received a response from Appellant in which he
asserts that the denial of his motion to recuse “may” be reviewed, with this court’s
permission, in an interlocutory appeal. We disagree.
      First, we note that an order denying a motion to recuse is not a final,
appealable order; it may be reviewed only in an appeal from a final judgment.
Green v. State, 374 S.W.3d 434, 445 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). An appeal of the
decision to deny a motion to recuse, standing alone, would be improper. Id. Second,
we note that the order from which Appellant attempts to appeal appears to relate to
an Article 11.07 writ of habeas corpus that was filed by Appellant. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp 2022). Article 11.07 vests complete
jurisdiction over postconviction relief from final felony convictions in the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. §§ 3, 5; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel.
Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1995); Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (only
Court of Criminal Appeals has authority to grant postconviction relief from final
felony convictions). There is no role for the intermediate courts of appeals in the
procedure under Article 11.07. See CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3; Ater v. Eighth Court
of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). For
the above reasons, we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
      Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                    PER CURIAM

March 16, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                          2