Christopher J. Padilla v. State
04-15-00438-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 13, 2016Background
- Christopher J. Padilla was convicted by a jury of murder and robbery and sentenced to 52 years (murder) and 20 years (robbery).
- During voir dire the trial judge made comments suggesting jurors consider the full range of punishment and gave examples; defense objected that the judge was advising the prosecution.
- Defense counsel orally moved for the judge to recuse himself after the bench comments and requested the motion be heard by an independent judge; the trial judge denied recusal and declined to refer the motion.
- Defense counsel did not file a written, verified, and timely motion to recuse under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a following the oral request.
- The trial court and parties proceeded; the allegedly problematic venire member was struck for cause and trial continued.
- On appeal Padilla argued the judge should have recused or referred the recusal motion to another judge and that the judge’s conduct deprived him of due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Padilla) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial judge had to recuse or refer recusal motion | Judge injected himself by assisting prosecution during voir dire; must recuse or refer under De Leon | Trial judge may initially determine procedural sufficiency of recusal motion; oral request alone did not preserve error | Trial court did not abuse discretion: no written, verified motion was filed and judge’s comments did not demonstrate disqualifying bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaal v. State, 332 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard for recusal and analysis of judge remarks and impartiality)
- De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (discussing referral requirements for recusal motions)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (clarifying when judicial remarks demonstrate bias requiring recusal)
- Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (applying Rule 18a filing requirements in criminal cases)
- Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (reasonableness standard for judging apparent judicial impartiality)
- Rosas v. State, 76 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (refusing recusal where record did not show judge bias)