







Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed August 17, 2004








Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed August 17,
2004.
 
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
_______________
 
NO. 14-03-00404-CR
_______________
 
ERNEST ROMAN, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_________________________________________________
 
On Appeal from the 178th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 913,969
_________________________________________________
 
C O N C U R R I N G  
O P I N I O N
 




In
essence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant=s motion to recuse because: (1) Judge
Harmon testified at the recusal hearing that he could consider the full range
of punishment; and (2) the evidence was undisputed that he had consistently
told the parties that he could do so.[1]  Moreover, the comments relied upon by
appellant (to show that Judge Harmon would not consider the full range of
punishment) reflected only that he thought he would be less lenient than a jury
in sentencing, but not that he could not, or would not, consider the full range
of punishment in whatever sentencing decision he made.  I thus believe it is unnecessary (at best) to
determine that Judge Harmon was biased at all, let alone whether as
contemplated by case law or from non-judicial sources.[2]
 
/s/        Richard H. Edelman
Justice
 
Judgment rendered
and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed August 17, 2004.
Panel consists of
Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Seymore. 
(Fowler, J., majority.)
 




[1]           See,
e.g., Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 211 (Tex. 2002) (noting
that a trial court does not abuse its discretion if some evidence reasonably
supports its decision).


[2]           See
Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 (requiring
court of appeals opinions to be as brief as practicable to address the issues
necessary to disposition of the appeal).


