Opinion
03-24-00120-CV
03-28-2024
In re Inquiry Concerning Honorable Guy Williams
FROM THE SPECIAL COURT OF REVIEW APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Guy Williams, former judge of the 148th district court, seeks to appeal an order signed by a Special Court of Review, convened under Chapter 33 of the Texas Government Code for the purpose of reviewing a decision by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in a proceeding against Williams. See Tex. Gov't Code §§ 33.001-.051.
Chapter 33 of the Government Code governs the Commission and its investigation of complaints against members of the judiciary. Smith v. State Comm 'n on Judicial Conduct, No. 03-04-00376-CV, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 10219, at * (Tex. App-Austin Dec. 8, 2005, pet. denied) (mem. op.). A judge who is sanctioned by the Commission is entitled to de novo review of the Commission's decision by a Special Court of Review, made up of three court of appeals justices appointed by the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. Tex. Gov't Code § 33.034(a)-(e). The Special Court of Review's decision "is not appealable." Id. § 33.034(i).
On November 26, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Williams that it appears the order for which he seeks review is not appealable and that, as a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. In his written response, Williams contends that he "is challenging the constitutional authority of two of the justices and jurisdiction of the Special Court of Review to render a decision in this case." According to Williams, two of the judges on the Special Court of Review failed to properly execute their oaths of office. See Prieto Bail Bonds v. State, 994 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex. App-El Paso 1999, pet. refd) (because visiting judge "was required to take the constitutional oaths, but did not do so, all judicial actions taken by him in the case were without authority"). In effect, Williams seeks a declaration that the Special Court of Review's order is void. See id. Williams fails to explain, however, why this proceeding does not constitute an appeal from a "decision under [Section 33.034]" or how this Court would otherwise have appellate jurisdiction to consider the merits of his challenge, which is being brought for the first time in this Court. See Manning v. Sony, No. 03-21 -00263-CV, 03-21-00264-CV, 2021 Tex.App. LEXIS 5460, at *1 (Tex. App-Austin July 9, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining that our jurisdiction "is limited to appeals from judgments by the district or county courts in our district boundaries" (citing Tex. Gov't Code § 22.220)). Because the order that Williams seeks to appeal is not appealable, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction