英語翻譯
The procedures for recusal of judges set out in Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply in criminal cases.See State ex rel.Rosenthal v.Poe,98 S.W.3d 194,198 (Tex.Cr.App.2003) (orig.proceeding).This Court will grant mandamus relief if De Leon can demonstrate that the act sought to be compelled is purely “ministerial” and that De Leon has no adequate legal remedy.
The Court of Appeals stated tha Respondent,therefore,claims that he had no duty to recuse himself or to refer the recusal motion for another judge to decide.Respondent argues that he did not violate Rule 18a because he merely exercised his power to determine that De Leon's recusal motion did not present a “prima facie case justifying recusal.” See Chavez,at 112-13; see also McClenan v.State,661 S.W.2d 108,110 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (in order for Rule 18a to come into play,motion must be prima facie adequate and allege proper grounds upon which a recusal is sought).t the law has developed in criminal cases “that a criminal trial judge may make an initial determination as to whether the recusal motion conforms with Rule 18a(a)” even though case law “in civil cases is starkly different.”
.