In re Interest of A.T.M.

2 Citing cases

  1. Debord v. State

    No. 13-21-00280-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 14, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    This is the third time we have held Judge Bell violated the rules of judicial conduct. See In re Marriage of Ramos & Shafer, No. 13-22-00061-CV, 2023 WL 3240787, at *11-12 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg May 4, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (finding Judge Bell engaged in an ex parte communication with appellant's criminal defense attorney but affirming because appellant failed to make a "clear showing" of judicial bias or partiality); In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *17- 19 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (finding Judge Bell made several improper comments but affirming because the record did "not reveal that the trial court developed any antagonism or bias against [appellant] based on prior proceedings in an unrelated case"). 3. Admonishment

  2. Johnson v. State

    No. 02-21-00094-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 30, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Although we cannot hear a judge's tone from a cold record, even a transcript can sometimes reveal a judge's questioning to be nothing more than an attempt to belittle or embarrass a witness rather than a sincere attempt at clarifying testimony. See, e.g., In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *19 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). In this case, however, C.F. was indisputably lying in either her hearing testimony or in her interactions with the 911 dispatcher and police officers on the night in question, and it fell to the judge to determine what version of her story was more credible.