Pruett, Robert Lynn ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           WR-62,099-03
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    Transmitted 4/8/2015 12:55:52 PM
    Accepted 4/8/2015 1:12:29 PM
    ABEL ACOSTA
    CLERK
    No. WR-62,099-03
    RECEIVED
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    4/8/2015
    ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
    IN THE
    COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS
    FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
    In re Robert Lynn Pruett,
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    William Stephens,
    Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
    Correctional Institutions Division
    Respondent.
    _________________________________
    MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE BERT RICHARDSON
    _________________________________
    CAPITAL CASE
    MR. PRUETT IS SCHEDULED TO BE EXECUTED ON APRIL 28, 2015.
    _________________________________
    David R. Dow
    Texas Bar No. 06064900
    ddow@central.uh.edu
    University of Houston Law Center
    100 Law Center
    Houston, Texas 77204-6060
    TEL: (713) 743-2171
    FAX: (713) 743-2131
    No. WR-62,099-03
    IN THE
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
    In re Robert Lynn Pruett,
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    William Stephens,
    Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
    Correctional Institutions Division
    Respondent.
    _________________________________
    MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE BERT RICHARDSON
    _________________________________
    To avoid any appearance of impropriety and promote public confidence in
    the integrity of the judiciary, Relator-Petitioner Robert Lynn Pruett asks that Judge
    Bert Richardson recuse himself, or be recused by the Court, from further
    participation in this case. The basis for this motion is that Judge Richardson
    presided over the DNA proceedings in this case in the trial court. The petition
    filed in this cause pertains to the evidence that was at issue in the trial court
    proceedings over which Judge Richardson presided.
    The grounds for recusal of appellate judges are the same as the grounds for
    the recusal of trial judges. See Tex. R. App. P. 16.2. Under Texas Rule of Civil
    Procedure 18b(2), a judge must recuse himself in any proceeding in which:
    (a)    his impartiality might reasonably be questioned;
    (b)    he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the subject matter or a
    party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning
    the proceeding.
    Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b(2)(a), (b).
    The standard for assessing judicial bias in this context is whether the
    allegation of lack of impartiality is grounded on facts that would create doubts
    concerning the judge’s impartiality – not in the mind of the judge himself, or even,
    necessarily, in the mind of the party filing the motion, but rather in the mind of a
    reasonable person with knowledge of all the circumstances involved. Kemp v.
    State, 
    846 S.W.2d 289
    , 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); see Rogers v. Bradley, 
    909 S.W.2d 872
    , 880-82 (Tex. 1995) (Enoch, J., responding to declaration of recusal).
    The language of the rule is mandatory. The standard is an objective one: It
    requires “the judge to recuse if ‘his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’
    regardless of the source or circumstances giving rise to the question of impartiality
    and even though the source and circumstances may be beyond the judge’s volition
    or control.” 
    Rogers, 909 S.W.2d at 874
    (Gammage, J., declaration of recusal).
    Because of Judge Richardson’s presiding over proceedings in the trial court,
    2
    his impartiality with respect to the instant petition might reasonably be questioned
    by a reasonable person. Moreover, if Judge Richardson acquired any knowledge
    during those proceedings that was outside of the record on appeal received by this
    Court, that knowledge would seem to require his recusal.
    If these proceedings were in the federal (rather than state) courts, Judge
    Richardson’s recusal would be required. See 28 U.S.C. § 47 (“No judge shall hear
    or determine an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him.”).
    Similarly, his recusal would be required if Texas was among the states to have
    adopted the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct. See
    Model Code of Judicial Conduct R. 2.11(A)(6)(d) (requiring a judge to disqualify
    himself if he “previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court”).
    The federal rule reflects that a reasonable person would harbor doubts as to the
    impartiality of an appellate court judge, when that same judge previously acted as
    the trial court judge in the same case.
    3
    PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Pruett asks that Judge Richardson recuse
    himself, or be recused by this Court, from the case.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    s/ David R. Dow
    __________________________
    David R. Dow
    Texas Bar No. 06064900
    University of Houston Law Center
    100 Law Center
    Houston, Texas 77204-6060
    Tel. (713) 743-2171
    Fax (713) 743-2131
    Counsel for Robert Pruett
    4
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I certify that on the 8th day of April 2015, a true and correct copy of the
    above legal document was delivered via email to:
    Jefferson Clendenin
    Assistant Attorney General
    Criminal Appeals Division
    Texas Bar No. 24059589
    P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
    Austin, Texas 78711
    Tel. (512) 936-1600
    Fax (512) 320-8132
    Email jay.clendenin@texasattorneygeneral.gov
    Melinda Fletcher
    Special Prosecution Unit
    mfletcher@sputexas.org
    s/ David R. Dow
    _________________________
    David R. Dow
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WR-62,099-03

Filed Date: 4/8/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016