Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Philip James Emerson, Jr., proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the County Court of Wood County on April 16, 2025. That same day, he moved to disqualify County Judge Kevin White or, alternatively, to recuse him.
Before addressing the disqualification or recusal motion, Judge White entered a May 14, 2025, order denying habeas relief. Emerson then sought mandamus relief on five grounds, asking the Sixth Court of Appeals to invalidate that ruling and related referral and assignment orders. Alternatively, he sought orders compelling action on his pending habeas petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court conditionally granted mandamus relief in part. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(f)(1) required Judge White, after the recusal motion was filed, either to recuse or disqualify himself or to refer the motion to the regional presiding judge. Until taking one of those actions, he could not proceed further in the case.
Because Judge White denied habeas relief without first complying with Rule 18a(f)(1), the appellate court held that the May 14 order was void and directed the trial court to withdraw it. Vacating that order left Emerson’s habeas petition pending in the trial court. The court denied all other requested relief and stated that the writ would issue only if the trial court failed to comply.
Key Takeaways
- A judge presented with a recusal motion must either recuse or refer the motion to the regional presiding judge, regardless of whether the motion satisfies technical requirements.
- An order entered after a recusal motion is filed but before the judge takes one of the required Rule 18a actions is void.
- The court granted only conditional mandamus relief directing withdrawal of the habeas-denial order; it denied Emerson’s remaining requests.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Rule 18a imposes an immediate procedural limit on a judge’s authority once a recusal motion is filed. Even a ruling on the merits of a habeas petition cannot stand if entered before the judge recuses or refers the motion as required.
The ruling did not grant Emerson habeas relief. Instead, it restored the case to its prior posture, with the habeas petition still pending for further proceedings after proper handling of the recusal issue.