CAUSE NO.

06-CR-3624-F
THE STATE OF TEXAS

vs.
HANNAH RUTH OVERTON

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
214TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECUSE

On October 29, 2014, Defendant, Hannah Ruth Overton, filed her Motion to Recuse
the Honorable Jose Longoria, Presiding Judge of the 214th Judicial District Court of
Nueces County, Texas, in this case. On October 30, 2014, the Honorable J. Rolando
Olvera, Presiding Judge of the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region assigned me to hear
and consider Defendant's motion to recuse.
The motion to recuse was immediately set for hearing on November 7, 2014. On
October 31, 2014, I granted Defendant's first motion for continuance, and the motion was
reset for hearing on November 12, 2014. On November 3, 2014, Defendant filed her First
Amended Motion to Recuse. On November 10, 2014, I granted Defendant's second
motion for continuance, and the motion was reset for hearing on November 25, 2014.
On November 13, 2014, the State filed its Response to Defendant's Motion to
Recuse, and attached an affidavit from Judge Jose Longoria, dated November 10, 2014,
contradicting the allegations made by Defendant in her motion to recuse. The State
subsequently filed an amended response to the motion to recuse, and again attached
Judge Longoria's affidavit to the response.
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 18a and 18b govern the recusal and disqualification
of judges. Rule 18a(c)(2) provides as follows:
(c)

Response to Motion

(2)

By the Respondent Judge. The judge whose recusal or

disqualification is sought should not file a response to the
motion.

In addition, Rule 18a(f)(2)(A) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(f)

Duties of Respondent Judge . ..

(2)

Restrictions on Further Action.

(A)

Motion Filed Before Evidence Offered at Trial. If a

motion is filed before evidence has been offered at trial,
the respondent judge must take no further action in the
case until the motion has been decided, except for good
cause stated in writing or on the record.

By filing an affidavit in this case, it is abundantly clear that Judge Longoria is actively
participating in these proceedings and actively challenging his recusal. See Blanchard v.
Krueger, 916 S.W.2nd 15 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st] 1995). The taint of partiality is patently
evident and cannot be erased or cured by the hearing of evidence. Therefore, I find it not
necessary to hear evidence on the substance or merits of Defendant's motion to recuse.
By filing an affidavit in this case, I find that Judge Longoria's impartiality as a judge
in this case might reasonably be questioned. See Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18b(b)(1).
Accordingly, I find that Judge Longoria must be recused in this case.
Defendant's First Amended Motion to Recuse Judge Jose Longoria is GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Jose Longoria be and is hereby RECUSED from this
case.
The Presiding Judge of the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region is requested to
transfer this case to another court or assign another Judge to preside over this case. All
ancillary motions presently pending in this case are referred to the Presiding Judge of the
Fifth Administrative Judicial Region for his consideration.
The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to immediately send a certified copy of this
Order to the Presiding Judge of the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region. The Clerk of the
Court is also ORDERED to immediately send copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

SIGNED on the

J.,..'f: '(!;.

day of November, 2014.

Senior Judge, Presiding by Assignment

Page 2