Gaal v. State, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 284

Appellant George Gaal was convicted of felony DWI following a bench and jury process in Texas.
At a June 30, 2008 plea setting, the trial judge stated he would not accept any plea bargain unless it was for the maximum ten-year term.
Gaal filed a motion to recuse based on that remark; recusal proceedings occurred in August 2008 before a recusal judge.
The recusal judge denied the motion, concluding there was no arbitrary or improper basis to recuse.
Gaal pled guilty at trial and received a ten-year sentence; he appealed asserting recusal error and due-process denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the recusal judge abused discretion	Gaal argues the judge forecast unable to consider full punishment range.	State contends ruling was within zone of reasonable disagreement.	No abuse; within zone of reasonable disagreement
Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the recusal denial	Gaal seeks review of denial under Rule 18a(f).	State asserts appellate review is proper on direct appeal.	Court has jurisdiction to review the denial
What standard governs recusal review	Gaal claims totality of evidence requires reversal.	State argues abuse-of-discretion standard with zone of reasonable disagreement.	Standard supports affirmance; within zone of reasonable disagreement

Norton v. State, 755 S.W.2d 522 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988) (premature/explicit plea promises as recusal basis)
Jefferson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991) (explicit sentencing threats as recusal basis)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) (extrajudicial sources and bias standard)
Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (recusal standards and bias discussion)
Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (zone-of-reasonable-disagreement standard)
Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (arbitrary refusal to consider full range of punishment)