Erik Santana Guanche v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Opinion issued December 16, 2014
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    For The
    First District of Texas
    ————————————
    NO. 01-13-00851-CR
    ———————————
    ERIK SANTANA GUANCHE, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 7
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Case No. 1869024
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, appellant Erik Santana Guanche
    pleaded guilty to a Class B misdemeanor DWI as a first offender. See TEX. PENAL
    CODE ANN. § 49.04 (West Supp. 2014). In accordance with the terms of the plea
    bargain, the trial court sentenced Guanche to 15 days in the Harris County Jail with
    4 days’ credit and imposed a $500 fine. The trial court certified that this is a plea
    bargain case, but that matters were raised by written motion filed and ruled on
    before trial from which Guanche had the right to appeal. Guanche appeals the
    denial of his motion to recuse the trial court judge, requesting that we reverse the
    judgment and the denial of the motion to recuse. We affirm.
    Background
    Guanche was charged by information with Class B misdemeanor DWI as a
    first offender. Guanche was released on bond and, as a condition of his release,
    was ordered to install an ignition interlock device on his vehicle. After his bond
    supervision officer filed a violation report stating that Guanche had failed to pay
    administrative fees and tested positive for drug use, the trial court revoked
    Guanche’s bail, raised it to $4,000, and amended the conditions of bail to make
    them stricter. Guanche’s bond supervision officer later filed a second violation
    report stating that Guanche had (1) failed to pay administrative fees, (2) on April
    15, 2013, Guanche’s breath alcohol level was measured at 0.040, and (3) Guanche
    had attempted to bribe a urinalysis technician with $100. The trial court revoked
    Guanche’s bail for a second time, raised it to $8,000, and amended the terms of
    bail to make them even stricter.
    Guanche then filed a verified motion to recuse the trial court on the grounds
    that her “impartiality might be reasonably questioned, [she] has a personal bias or
    2
    prejudice concerning the subject matter, defense counsel or a party, or the judge
    has no regard for Texas law, and there is a strong appearance of impropriety.” The
    ground for the motion was that the trial court had tried to “coerce” Guanche’s
    counsel to interpret for his Spanish-speaking client in an unrelated matter.
    According to Guanche’s counsel, he represented that client in a bond matter before
    the trial court, and when Guanche refused to interpret for his client, the trial court
    became upset, mocked counsel, and asked counsel why he had not made the
    request for an interpreter earlier. Guanche argued that “hundreds, if not thousands,
    of guilty pleas from those accused, for many recent years, were completed illegally
    in open court in Harris County, and this court, without licensed interpreters, in
    direct violation of the Texas Government Code and criminal law.” Thus, Guanche
    argued, “the judge is not fit to hear this case regarding this Spanish surnamed
    defendant who has retained this same counsel in the current case.”
    The trial court declined to recuse herself and referred the motion to the
    Presiding Judge of the Second Administrative Judicial Region, Olen Underwood.
    Presiding Judge Underwood denied the motion. Guanche pleaded guilty before a
    different trial court judge and was sentenced in accordance with his plea
    agreement.
    3
    Discussion
    In his sole issue on appeal, Guanche urges us to reverse the judgment on the
    grounds that the trial court and Presiding Judge Underwood erred in denying his
    motion to recuse.
    A.    Standard of Review
    We review an order denying a motion to recuse under an abuse-of-discretion
    standard. TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A); see Abdygapparova v. State, 
    243 S.W.3d 191
    , 198 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref’d).              The court abuses its
    discretion if its ruling is outside the “zone of reasonable disagreement” or if it fails
    to apply proper guiding rules and principles. Kemp v. State, 
    846 S.W.2d 289
    , 306
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Abdygapparova, 
    243 S.W.3d at
    197–98.
    B.    Applicable Law
    Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18(b) provides that a judge must recuse if,
    among other things (1) the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or
    (2) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the subject matter or a
    party. TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b(b)(1)–(2). Under Rule 18(b)(1), a judge’s impartiality
    might reasonably be questioned if she “harbors an aversion, hostility or disposition
    of a kind that a fair-minded person could not set aside when judging the dispute.”
    Gaal v. State, 
    332 S.W.3d 448
    , 453 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see TEX. R. CIV.
    P. 18b(b)(1). “Rule 18(b)(2) is more specific: It covers how the judge feels and
    4
    what the judge knows,” such as when a judge has personally observed the conduct
    that led to a defendant’s detention. Gaal, 
    332 S.W.3d at 453
    ; see TEX. R. CIV.
    P. 18b(b)(2).
    Recusal generally is not required when the judge is accused of a personal
    bias based solely on her judicial rulings, remarks or actions. See Gaal, 
    332 S.W.3d at
    453–54. However, when the judge’s remarks reveal an opinion based on an
    extra-judicial source (sometimes referred to as “personal” bias), recusal could be
    warranted. See 
    id.
     at 453–54. In either case, if the comments or actions reveal
    “such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment
    impossible,” then recusal is required. See 
    id. at 454
     (quoting Liteky v. United
    States, 
    510 U.S. 540
    , 555, 
    114 S. Ct. 1147
    , 1157 (1994)).
    The party seeking recusal must establish that a reasonable person, knowing
    all the circumstances involved, would have doubts as to the impartiality of the
    judge. See Kemp, 
    846 S.W.2d at 305
    ; Abdygapparova, 
    243 S.W.3d at 198
    . The
    evidence must be sufficient to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality.
    See Kemp, 
    846 S.W.2d at 306
    ; Abdygapparova, 
    243 S.W.3d at
    198–99. Further,
    the bias must be “of such nature, and to such extent, as to deny the defendant due
    process of law.” Kemp, 
    846 S.W.2d at 305
    ; see also Abdygapparova, 
    243 S.W.3d at 199
     (noting that this is a “high standard”). In order to meet the standards for a
    recusal motion, the motion, among other things, must include verified allegations
    5
    that “if proven, would be sufficient to justify recusal . . . .”           TEX. R. CIV.
    P. 18a(a)(4)(C).
    C.    Analysis
    On appeal, Guanche argues that the trial court violated Texas Code of
    Criminal Procedure article 38.30, the Texas and U.S. Constitutions, various Texas
    and federal statutes and common law doctrines, ethics rules, attorney general
    opinions, Harris County’s “settlement agreement . . . with the Texas Civil Rights
    Project,” and “potential appellate reversals.” App. Br. 6–7. He does not specify
    how any of these were violated, but the gravamen of his complaint is that the trial
    court violated Texas law in an unrelated proceeding by trying to coerce Guanche’s
    counsel to interpret for his Spanish-speaking client in that case. In his point of
    error, he asserts that “[t]he trial court erred in refusing to recuse itself after multiple
    open court efforts by the court to have defense counsel violate Texas criminal law
    by interpreting for the defendant, before the court, on issues of bail, without the
    required license; and the Presiding Judge of the Administrative Region erred in
    denying the related Motion to Recuse.” We reject Guanche’s argument that the
    trial court erred in refusing to recuse and that Presiding Judge Underwood abused
    his discretion in denying Guanche’s motion to recuse.
    Guanche’s motion alleged that the trial court was required to recuse herself
    in his case because he has a Spanish surname. However, Guanche did not connect
    6
    the allegations in his motion regarding the trial court’s alleged remarks and actions
    with respect to an interpreter in the unrelated case to anything in his own case. On
    appeal, he argues that failure to provide a licensed interpreter is a due process
    violation. But although he alleged in his motion to recuse that recusal was required
    because he had a Spanish surname, he did not represent that he was not fluent in
    English or ever required, let alone had been denied, the assistance of an interpreter.
    In short, even if the trial court had illegally denied a Spanish-speaking defendant
    the use of an interpreter in another case, the mere fact that Guanche has a Spanish
    surname does not support a claim that the trial court was biased against him or
    could not impartially judge his case. Thus, he alleged nothing to show that the trial
    court “harbor[ed] an aversion, hostility or disposition of a kind that a fair-minded
    person could not set aside when judging [his] dispute.” Gaal, 
    332 S.W.3d at 453
    (judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned “only if it appears that he or
    she harbors an aversion, hostility or disposition of a kind that a fair-minded person
    could not set aside when judging the dispute”) (emphasis added). Likewise, his
    allegations do not demonstrate bias “of such nature, and to such extent, as to deny
    [him] due process of law,” because they do not suggest that the trial court had an
    opinion about the merits of Guanche’s case that stemmed from an improper source.
    Kemp, 
    846 S.W.2d at
    305–06 (for alleged bias to properly form basis for recusal, it
    “must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on
    7
    some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case”).
    Thus, his motion did not contain facts that “if proven, would be sufficient to justify
    recusal.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(a)(4)(c). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did
    not err in refusing to recuse and that Presiding Judge Underwood did not abuse his
    discretion in denying the motion to recuse. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A);
    Kemp, 
    846 S.W.2d at 306
    .
    We overrule Guanche’s sole point of error.
    Conclusion
    We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    Justice Rebeca Huddle
    Justice
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
    Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
    8