Ex Parte Sinegar
2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1357
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2010Background
- Applicant pleaded no contest to aggravated kidnapping with ten years' deferred adjudication, later adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 75 years.
- Applicant filed a habeas corpus application under Article 11.07 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not seeking the trial judge's recusal.
- The trial judge who presided at adjudication also presided over the habeas proceeding.
- Applicant submitted a rebuttal and a motion for recusal hearing asserting bias based on alleged threats against the judge.
- The trial judge held an affidavit hearing and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law denying relief; the matter was remanded for further fact finding.
- This Court later addressed whether Rule 18a applies to trial-court habeas proceedings and whether applicant complied with its requirements, then remanded for a proper recusal hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 18a apply to habeas proceedings in the trial court? | Sinegar argues Rule 18a governs recusal. | State contends 18a does not apply in trial-court habeas. | Rule 18a applies to trial-court habeas proceedings. |
| Did Sinegar comply with Rule 18a notice and filing requirements? | Sinegar complied with filing and service on the State. | State questions some notices and timeliness. | Substantial compliance found; remand for proper recusal hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (Rule 18a applies to criminal cases absent contrary intent; applicable to habeas in trial court per Arnold)
- Bahm v. State, 219 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App.2007) (unsworn declaration requirements for recusal filings)
- Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. Crim. App.2010) (pro se inmate filing and service considerations in habeas contexts)