Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

89 S.W.3d 190

Teixeira v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · decided 2002-10-01

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 2014

11 state decisions

Relies on Martin v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-10-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GRANT, Justice,

¶1concurring.

¶2I do not agree with the majority opinion that counsel would be required to make an objection to such fundamental error, because the trial strategy might make such an objection imprudent. However, I concur with the results because the appropriate action by counsel would have been to move to recuse the trial judge on the basis that the trial judge had expressed an unwillingness to consider the entire range of punishment. A motion to recuse is considered timely filed when the matter for recusal arises even after the ten day deadline set in Tex.R. Civ. P. 18(a). Martin v. *195State, 876 S.W.2d 396 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, no pet.); Keene Corp. v. Rogers, 863 SW.2d 168 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993, no pet.).

/89/sw3d/190 · .json · Public domain