Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
appeal from the 404th District Court of Cameron County,
the Court En Banc
cause is before this Court on appellant's "Motion to
Transfer this Case to the 14th Court of Appeals." In
this motion, appellant requests that the Chief Justice of
this Court and Chief Justice Kem Thompson Frost of the
Fourteenth Court of Appeals to "consider this request
and to forward a copy of this motion to the Supreme Court,
along with a letter stating your concurrence or
non-concurrence with his request to transfer."
Appellant's motion broadly asserts that he has been the
subject of official oppression, abuse of office, and
political retaliation by various trial court judges, the
Hidalgo County District Attorney's Office, and the
Justices of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals. We construe
appellant's motion as containing an implicit request for
the recusal of the Justices of the Thirteenth Court of
Appeals. As discussed herein, we deny the implicit motion to
recuse and, by way of this order, notify the Texas Supreme
Court that we have no objection to the proposed transfer.
cause, appellant has appealed a conviction for theft in the
amount of $1, 500 or more, but less than $20, 000.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (West, Westlaw
through 2015 R.S.). Appellant has frequently appeared before
this Court in various other appeals and original proceedings.
See, e.g., In re Partain, No. 13-16-00516-CV, 2016
WL 5846549, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Sept. 3, 2016,
orig. proceeding) (per curiam mem. op.); Partain v.
Guerra, No. 13-13-00341-CV, 2015 WL 4116727, at *1 (Tex.
App.-Corpus Christi July 2, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.);
Partain v. Estate of Maples, No. 13-14-00584-CV,
2015 WL 5092167, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi June 25,
2015, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (mem. op.); Partain v.
Maples, 438 S.W.3d 69, 70 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi
2013, no pet.); Partain v. Maples, No.
13-11-00289-CV, 2012 WL 29258, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus
Christi Jan. 5, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam mem. op.); In
re Maples, No. 13-08-00524-CV, 2008 WL 4515808, at *1
(Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Oct. 8, 2008, orig. proceeding
[mand. denied]) (per curiam mem. op.); In re
Partain, No. 13-11-00276-CV, 2011 WL 1936057, at *1
(Tex. App.-Corpus Christi May 18, 2011, orig. proceeding)
(per curiam mem. op.).
asserts that the Justices of this Court should not hear or
consider appellant's case in this cause because of
official oppression and corruption. Appellant's motion to
transfer reads in part:
Appellant does not bring this motion lightly, but on the
weight of a long solid history of serious abuses of judicial
discretion, official oppression in the South Texas judiciary
and Hidalgo District Attorney's Office, and a warning of
political retaliation from public officials through the
Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office which are intertwined
with this instant criminal process. Consider the following.
It is difficult to precisely or richly communicate years of
successful yet antagonistic process in this relatively short
motion, but it should be blatantly clear on the
aforementioned considerations that the Appellant has been the
target of unconstitutional acts and official oppressions
which have reached and sullied the 13th Court of Appeals
through politics with the Hidalgo County District
Attorney's Office since about 2012. Appellant has a right
to a fair and unbiased judiciary and no citizen should ever
be exposed to what the Appellant has suffered in South Texas
("third world corruption" quoting Governor Greg
Abbott, former Attorney General of Texas, describing South
Texas). Appellant looks forward to oral arguments.
contends that this Court has "[m]anufactured facts"
and made "misrepresentations of law" with regard to
his previous appeals. He asserts that "[s]o many
outrageous errors of fact and law prove official oppression,
not accident or incompetence." Appellant thus requests
that the Texas Supreme Court transfer this case to the
Fourteenth Court of Appeals.
Court, having examined and fully considered appellant's
motion, is of the opinion that it in substance seeks the
recusal of the Justices of this Court. See State Bar of
Tex. v. Heard, 603 S.W.2d 829, 833 (Tex. 1980) ("We
look to the substance of a plea for relief to determine the
nature of the pleading, not merely at the form of title given
to it."). We treat it accordingly. "The manner in
which our judicial system handles the recusal of judges
affects public confidence in the judiciary, as it goes to the
'very heart of the promise of impartiality.'"
Ex parte Thuesen, No. WR-81, 584-01, 2017 WL 510563,
at *4, __S.W.3d__, __ (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 8, 2017) (per
curiam) (quoting Johnson v. Pumjani, 56 S.W.3d 670,
672 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.)).
judges have the duty to sit and decide matters brought before
them, unless there is a basis for disqualification or
recusal.” Rogers v. Bradley, 909 S.W.2d 872,
879 (Tex. 1995) (Enoch, J., concurring); see Ex parte
Ellis,275 S.W.3d 109, 115 (Tex. App.-Austin 2008, no
pet.); In re K.E.M., 89 S.W.3d 814, 819 (Tex. App.-Corpus
Christi 2002, no pet.); see also TEX. CODE JUD. CONDUCT,
Canon 2(A), reprinted in TEX. GOV'T. CODE ANN., tit. 2,
subtit. G, app. B (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.) (“A
judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge
except those in which disqualification is required or recusal
is appropriate.”). In fact, judges have “as much
of an obligation not to step down from a case when there is
no reason to do so as they have to do so when there is a
reason.” In re K.E.M., 89 S.W.3d at 819; see Rogers,
909 S.W.2d at 879 (Enoch, J., concurring); Ex parte