neutral and detached hearing in Texas

2024If something you’re doing or seeing has some application to this autopsy, go ahead and explain everything because I want—a visual picture is worth a thousand words.” A. Standard of Review & Applicable Law “Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.” Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex. Crim.

2023A. Standard of Review & Applicable Law “Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.” Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex. Crim.

2025See Montgomery v. State, No. 02-21-00002-CR, 2022 WL 5240472 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 6, 2022, pet. granted) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 20 officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation”), (5) a neutral and detached hearing body, and (6) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.7 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)); see Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29 , 41–42 (Tex. Crim.

2020App. 2006) (“Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.” (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973))).

2015Earley v. State, 855 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, no pet.).

2015Earley v. State, 855 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, pet. dism’d as improvidently granted) (noting that “[d]ue process of law requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.

2025See Montgomery v. State, No. 02-21-00002-CR, 2022 WL 5240472 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 6, 2022, pet. granted) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 20 officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation”), (5) a neutral and detached hearing body, and (6) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.7 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)); see Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29 , 41–42 (Tex. Crim.

1986Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer. *371 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 , 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1761 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (revocation of probation); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (revocation of parole).

2018Although the trial court has “wide discretion in determining the proper punishment in a revocation hearing, due process requires the right to a hearing before a neutral and detached hearing body.” Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex. Crim.

2016“And despite a judge’s wide discretion in determining the proper punishment in a revocation hearing, due process requires the right to a hearing before a neutral and detached hearing body.” Id.

2022See Jaenicke, 109 S.W.3d at 796 .

2020See Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645 ; Jaenicke, 109 S.W.3d at 796 .

2015“Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.” Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645 . “[A] trial court’s arbitrary refusal to consider the entire range of punishment in a particular case violates due process.” Ex Parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449, 456 (Tex. Crim.

2015"Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer." Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645 . "[A] trial court's arbitrary refusal to consider the entire range of punishment in a particular case violates due process." Ex Parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449, 456 (Tex. Crim.

2015Staten v. State, 328 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Tex. App. – Beaumont, 2010, no pet.)(internal citations omitted).

2015Staten v. State, 328 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Tex. App. – Beaumont, 2010, no pet.)(internal citations omitted).

2026“When a claim of judicial bias is raised, we review the entire record to determine whether the judge’s bias or prejudice denied the defendant due process.” Riggins v. State, 714 S.W.3d 74 , 90 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, pet. ref’d) (citing Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191, 198 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref’d)).

2026“When a claim of judicial bias is raised, we review the entire record to determine whether the judge’s bias or prejudice denied the defendant due process.” Riggins v. State, 714 S.W.3d 74 , 90 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, pet. ref’d) (citing Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191, 198 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref’d)).

2016However, “[a]bsent a clear showing of bias, a trial court's actions will be presumed to have been correct.” Id.; see also Gordon v. State, –7– 191 S.W.3d 721 , 726–27 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding that when judge had not commented on defendant's guilt or innocence, his comments during voir dire did not constitute fundamental error); Davis v. State, 651 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Crim.

2010However, “[a]bsent a clear showing of bias, a trial court’s actions will be presumed to have been correct.” Id.; see also Gordon v. State, 191 S.W.3d 721, 726-27 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding that when judge had not commented on defendant’s guilt or innocence, his comments during voir dire that criminal justice system treated everyone exactly alike and that defendant controlled everything about system were comments on how criminal justice system operates and did not consti *917 tute fundamental error); Davis v. State, 651 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (holding th

2016However, “[a]bsent a clear showing of bias, a trial court's actions will be presumed to have been correct.” Id.; see also Gordon v. State, –7– 191 S.W.3d 721 , 726–27 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding that when judge had not commented on defendant's guilt or innocence, his comments during voir dire did not constitute fundamental error); Davis v. State, 651 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Crim.

2010However, “[a]bsent a clear showing of bias, a trial court’s actions will be presumed to have been correct.” Id.; see also Gordon v. State, 191 S.W.3d 721, 726-27 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding that when judge had not commented on defendant’s guilt or innocence, his comments during voir dire that criminal justice system treated everyone exactly alike and that defendant controlled everything about system were comments on how criminal justice system operates and did not consti *917 tute fundamental error); Davis v. State, 651 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (holding th

2015Blue, 41 S.W.3d at 135 (Keasler, In issue six, appellant contends the trial judge com J., concurring in the judgment only). mitted a litany of actions that demonstrated bias against 8 As described in a concurring opinion. her and denied her a fair trial.^ Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.

2015Argument Reply Issue #1: Appellant was not denied his right to a neutral and fair magistrate, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States and Texas Constitution, at his sentencing hearing. 1 Applicable law “Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.”1 “Absent a clear showing of bias, a trial court’s actions will be presumed to have been correct.”2 Even in the event that a court’s questioning of a witness is assumed to be, or appears to be, erroneous, if no fundamental constitutional right was affected then an objection would be required to preserve the

2015See Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 611-12 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985); Scarpelli, 411 U.S. at 786 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 .

2015See Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 611-12 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985); Scarpelli, 411 U.S. at 786 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 .

2025Id. (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S. Ct. 2593, 2604 (1972)); see Ex parte Carmona, 185 S.W.3d 492, 495 (Tex. Crim.

2025Id. (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S. Ct. 2593, 2604 (1972)); see Ex parte Carmona, 185 S.W.3d 492, 495 (Tex. Crim.

2003See id . ; Ruedas , 586 S.W.2d at 523 ; Moore , 11 S.W.3d at 499 .

2001Eldridge v. State, 731 S.W.2d 618, 619 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.) (citing Ruedas v. State, 586 S.W.2d 520, 523 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979)).

2025See Montgomery v. State, No. 02-21-00002-CR, 2022 WL 5240472 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 6, 2022, pet. granted) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 20 officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation”), (5) a neutral and detached hearing body, and (6) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.7 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)); see Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29 , 41–42 (Tex. Crim.

2019App. 2015). “[T]he minimum requirements of due process which must be observed in community supervision revocation hearings [are]: (1) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (2) disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him [or her]; (3) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and evidence, and the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (4) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (5) a written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.” Id. at 41–42 (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli

2001Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 559 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (in the context of parole revocation).

2001Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 559 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (in the context of parole revocation).

2021App. 2006) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973)); see Villareal v. State, 348 S.W.3d 365, 372 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, pet. ref’d) (observing that right to due process guarantees right to fair trial in fair tribunal).

2020See Loge v. State, 550 S.W.3d 366, 378 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (assuming without deciding that appellant’s complaint about judicial comments that allegedly violated appellant’s “right to an impartial judge” did not need to be preserved to be considered on appeal).1 “Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.” Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex. Crim.

2019App. 2006) (“Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.”); see also Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523, 535 (1927).

2018See In re K.L.R., 162 S.W.3d 291, 312 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, no pet.). 4 We further reject R.M.’s contention that the following language in A.S.’s first and second supplements to counter-petition to modify constitute a judicial admission: In the alternative, should the Court determine that Counter-Petitioner’s amended and supplemental pleadings are not filed in the original suit affecting parent-child relationship, that the Court construe the same as Respondent’s counter-petition in suit to modify parent-child relationship.

2015But to perform its high function in the best way ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice’ Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954).4 2 Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 644 (Tex. Crim.

2015Argument Reply Issue #1: Appellant was not denied his right to a neutral and fair magistrate, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States and Texas Constitution, at his sentencing hearing. 1 Applicable law “Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.”1 “Absent a clear showing of bias, a trial court’s actions will be presumed to have been correct.”2 Even in the event that a court’s questioning of a witness is assumed to be, or appears to be, erroneous, if no fundamental constitutional right was affected then an objection would be required to preserve the

2015Argument Reply Issue #1: Appellant was not denied his right to a neutral and fair magistrate, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States and Texas Constitution, at his sentencing hearing. 1 Applicable law “Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.”1 “Absent a clear showing of bias, a trial court’s actions will be presumed to have been correct.”2 Even in the event that a court’s questioning of a witness is assumed to be, or appears to be, erroneous, if no fundamental constitutional right was affected then an objection would be required to preserve the

2015Argument Reply Issue #1: Appellant was not denied his right to a neutral and fair magistrate, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States and Texas Constitution, at his sentencing hearing. 1 Applicable law “Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.”1 “Absent a clear showing of bias, a trial court’s actions will be presumed to have been correct.”2 Even in the event that a court’s questioning of a witness is assumed to be, or appears to be, erroneous, if no fundamental constitutional right was affected then an objection would be required to preserve the

2015Argument Reply Issue #1: Appellant was not denied his right to a neutral and fair magistrate, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States and Texas Constitution, at his sentencing hearing. 1 Applicable law “Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.”1 “Absent a clear showing of bias, a trial court’s actions will be presumed to have been correct.”2 Even in the event that a court’s questioning of a witness is assumed to be, or appears to be, erroneous, if no fundamental constitutional right was affected then an objection would be required to preserve the

2015Argument Reply Issue #1: Appellant was not denied his right to a neutral and fair magistrate, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States and Texas Constitution, at his sentencing hearing. 1 Applicable law “Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.”1 “Absent a clear showing of bias, a trial court’s actions will be presumed to have been correct.”2 Even in the event that a court’s questioning of a witness is assumed to be, or appears to be, erroneous, if no fundamental constitutional right was affected then an objection would be required to preserve the