Lewis, Gordon Ray, PD-0173-15

Gordon Ray Lewis was tried for capital murder in Fort Worth, Texas; his mother, Karen Adams, was later convicted of retaliation for threatening to kill the trial judge (Judge Ralph H. Walton, Jr.) after Lewis was indicted.
Lewis moved for recusal of Judge Walton based on the threat conviction; Judge Walton referred the recusal motion to the administrative judge, who declined to recuse him.
Lewis was tried before Judge Walton despite his mother’s conviction for threatening the judge arising from Lewis’s indictment.
Lewis sought discretionary review from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals arguing the trial judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b(b)(1) and under due process; the Court denied review on October 14, 2015.
Lewis filed a motion for rehearing of his petition for discretionary review asking the Court to grant full briefing and decide whether he was entitled to recusal and a new trial; he contends the appearance of bias — not actual bias — violates due process and Rule 18b standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lewis was denied a fair tribunal because Judge Walton should have been recused after Lewis’s mother was convicted for threatening the judge	Lewis: The administrative judge’s refusal to recuse Walton created an appearance of bias; Rule 18b(b)(1) and due process require recusal where impartiality might reasonably be questioned, entitling Lewis to a new trial	State: The State opposes recusal and contends review/relief is unwarranted (precise appellee arguments not detailed in motion)	The Court of Criminal Appeals initially refused discretionary review; Lewis asks rehearing to obtain full briefing on recusal/due-process issue (no merits reversal in this filing)

Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body)
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (appearance of justice and recusal standards where risk of bias threatens fair trial)
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) (trial procedures that tempt a judge to be partial deny due process)
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) (judicial proceedings that present possible temptation to be partial violate due process)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (distinguishing actual bias from appearances and standards for judicial disqualification)
Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347 (10th Cir. 1995) (appearance-based recusal analysis; judge’s state of mind not dispositive)
Sun Exploration & Production Co. v. Jackson, 783 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. 1989) (importance of avoiding appearance of impropriety to preserve public confidence)
Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (Rule 18b applies in criminal cases)