The Matlock Blog

Tarrant County on track for new felony district court

So it appears the criminal courts of Tarrant County are about to grow my one.  

Senate Bill 1553, which has passed the full Senate and now sits in House Committee, calls for the creation of five new district courts in Texas.  In addition to the Tarrant County court, it calls for the creation of a general district court for Denton County and a new criminal district court, juvenile district court, and civil district court in Bexar County.

The Tarrant County court would be named the 432nd District Court.  It's creation of course raises some questions.

The first is that the bill, as worded, goes into effect on September 1, 2009 if passed.  If that's the case, that means the governor would be in a position to appoint someone to the bench until the next election.  As a result, the question becomes who get's the spot?  

There are certainly a number of people that would like to be on the bench.  However, the new court may not be the only felony court in play next year.  I have it on pretty good authority that at least one incumbent will not run again, and that number might increase by as many as two before it's all said and done.   Once I've got more info, of course I'll be back to handicap the field for not only the new court, but the other open benches that might be up.

The other question is where will this court go?  I assume the Auxiliary Court would be replaced by the new court on the Sixth Floor of the newly renamed Tim Curry Justice Center.  After that however, there's not a lot of room left in the courthouse.  

This raises another issue.  When will Tarrant County start discussing a new courthouse?  With the population of Tarrant County expected to double in the next ten years, the current courthouse will be hard-pressed to keep up in its current setup.  

All that is known for sure right now, however, is that it looks like I'll have one more court to run back and forth from in the near future.

Is this bad?

I'm just thinking out loud here, (ok, typing, but whatever) but does the word "reprehensible" seem like a good campaign slogan?   

Every now and then, what happens in state court comes back up in federal court.  It almost never, ever, never, ever, never involves a federal judge reviewing the conduct of a state court judge.  Of course, until it does.  

Imagine this scenario.  A state court judge conducts his/ her business as usual, and mystifyingly sentences someone to, say 15 years in prison for failing to report on time to her probation officer.  Then, the defendant brings her 2254 claim into federal court alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.  With me so far?

During the hearing, not only does the appointed-for-life federal judge decide the defense attorney was indeed ineffective, but also has a few choice words for the state court judge.  One of those words, by the way, is "reprehensible." 

By itself, it's maybe a Lifetime movie.  Maybe.  More like a really bad WB tv show.  But now, let's add the back story.  

The federal judge is, as far as I am aware, the only district judge in the history of the Fifth Circuit to have ever been "sent to the showers", so to speak, by the Fifth Circuit itself for, um, not doing things the right way.  More interesting?  Maybe a straight-to-DVD release?

Now let's add this.  The state court judge?  Let's say he/ she resigned the bench to take a job in the D.A.'s office in preparation for his/ her run as the heir apparent to replace the long-serving D.A.  Now we're in at least Gigli land, right?

Let's add that the state judge is bypassed by the governor for the appointment to fill the vacant D.A.'s spot, and thus leaving the race wide open in what will surely be the hottest local election around.  

Would it be a disaster for the record of that 2254 hearing to be made public in which a federal judge describes the state court judge's conduct as "reprehensible" before the state court judge makes a run for the highest law enforcement position in the third most populated county in the State of Texas, and the 18th most populated in the country?  

I don't know.  Some might say it was reprehensible for it not to come out.  

But what the hell do I know?

I stand corrected, again

Just ask my wife, I screw things up.  Yesterday, I wrote about how the "Resign to run" provision of the Texas Constitution didn't prohibit a sitting District Judge from running for District Attorney unless the judge resigned the bench.  I was right.  At least about that.

Faithful commenter "et" whom I can only assume to be Edin Tally, remarked yesterday evening that while I was right about that provision, I had apparently forgotten about that pesky Code of Judicial Conduct.

Specifically, I should have re-read read Canon 5(3) which states:

"A judge shall resign from judicial office upon becoming a candidate in a contested election for a non-judicial office either in a primary or in a general or in a special election. A judge may continue to hold judicial office while being a candidate for election to or serving as a delegate in a state constitutional convention or while being a candidate for election to any judicial office."

So, I guess a District Judge, or any judge for that matter, has to resign the bench to run for an office like District Attorney.  

Who knew?  I guess I should have.  Now I do, and so do you.  (Is that a haiku?) 

Resign to run?

With the appointment of Joe Shannon to be the interim Tarrant County District Attorney, the question of who will ultimately be the next D.A. is the hottest question in the courthouse.  It's been reported that Shannon would accept the position with the understanding that he would not run in the 2010 election.  If that's true, then it could well be a free-for-all.

However, the Star-Telegram reports that the long list of candidates might well dwindle as a result of the governor's appointment.  The list of potential candidates for the Republican spot on the November 2010 ballot had been reported to include Criminal District Court No. 1 judge Sharen Wilson, 396th District Court judge George Gallagher, County Criminal Court No. 10 judge Phil Sorrells, as well former judge and current prosecutor Bob Gill.  Also considered interested is Kirk Claunch, a local Fort Worth attorney who unsuccessfully ran against Tim Curry in the 2006 primary.

The Star-Telegram reports the field could dwindle because judges Wilson, Gallagher, and Sorrells would have to resign their respective benches to run for the D.A. job.  But I don't think that's right.  Judge Sorrells would, but I don't believe judges Wilson or Gallagher would, and thus they could keep their sights on replacing Curry.

Article 16, Section 65 of the Texas Constitution is often referred to as the "Resign to run" provision.  It states that if a listed officeholder wants to run for another position when they still have at least a year left of their current term, they must resign their current position first.  The section is very specific about which offices it applies to, and it doesn't include District Judges.  As a result, a District Court judge, such as judges Wilson or Gallagher, would be permitted to remain on the bench while campaigning for the D.A. spot.  However, a County Criminal Court judge is in fact listed within the section, and as a result, Sorrells would have to resign his bench to be a candidate for District Attorney.

That would potentially create an exciting primary season.  Three very popular county, or in the case of Bob Gill former county officials.  All three are very well-liked within the Republican party.  

It's been reported that Gill is considered the frontrunner by many within the party.  But I understand that is really only representative of a small section of the Tarrant County Republican Party.  From those I've spoken to, there are significant sections of the party that favor either Wilson or Gallagher.  Few expect much party-wide support for Claunch.  

So with almost exactly 10 months remaining before the Republican primary in March of 2010, the race is already heating up.  

But what the hell do I know?

Politics or pragmatism?

Word out of Austin is that longtime Assistant District Attorney, and former Democratic state lawmaker Joe Shannon will be appointed by Governor Rick Perry to the remainder of the late Tim Curry's term as Tarrant County District Attorney.  

Shannon's appointment comes as a surprise to many courthouse insiders, most of whom expected the governor to appoint either the heir apparent or someone from whom he can collect political support in the governor's upcoming reelection bid against Senator Hutchison.  

Apparently, Governor Perry called potential nominees to give them the bad news on Tuesday.  Calls were placed to District Court Judges George Gallagher and Sharen Wilson, and former judge and current prosecutor Bob Gill.  

The appointment itself is somewhat interesting.  Shannon has said in the past that he is not interested in campaigning for the position.  Given that the office comes up for reelection next year, with the primaries set to be held in less than 11 months, it means there will be a free-for-all.

If the goal of the appointment was to ensure the status quo and allow all of the well-qualified candidates, as well as the less-than-qualified, to hash it out in the primaries, then this certainly accomplishes the goal.  But what does the governor get out of it?

Governor Perry can be called many things, but politically naive is not one of them.  So why appoint someone to what will probably be the most hotly-contested political office in the next election in the nation's second most Republican county that can't help you win reelection?  

The shrewd political move was to appoint former ADA J.D. Granger, son of Congresswoman Kay Granger, in hopes that Congresswoman Granger would throw her political support in Tarrant County behind the governor.  But that didn't happen.  Is it because Congresswoman Granger told the governor she would not support him for reelection?  

The bottom line is that the landscape is wide open in the race for Tarrant County District Attorney in 2010.  The four leading candidates at this point have to be current judges Sharen Wilson and George Gallagher and former judge Bob Gill, all Republicans, and Democrat Terri Moore, current Dallas ADA and former candidate herself.  

It should be an interesting race to replace the legendary Tim Curry next year.

But what the hell do I know?

Will coattails be a bad thing?

In the wake of the death of longtime District Attorney, Tim Curry, Tarrant County will have a new District Attorney for the first time in 36 years.  Who will it be?  At the present time, longtime first assistant Alan Levy is acting D.A.  But that is only temporary.

Under Texas law, Governor Rick Perry is to appoint Curry's replacement.  However, Curry's term was set to expire next year, so whomever is appointed will likely go right into election mode if they want to hang on to the spot.  But the big question is who will the Governor appoint?

The name most often thrown out by those in the criminal courts is former judge Bob Gill.  Judge Gill resigned the bench almost two years ago to take a position within the D.A.'s office.  Was that to position himself as the heir apparent?  Many believe so.  But will he get the appointment?

There are a number of other potential candidates for the primary election, currently set for March of next year.  Let's dispense with the Democrats first.  If current Dallas Assistant District Attorney, and former candidate for the position, Terri Moore wants to run, there should really be no one else on the ticket.  If she doesn't want it, who knows who the Democrats will mistakenly put on the ballot.

As for the Republicans, the list will be lengthy.  Aside from Bob Gill, there are current District Court judges Sharon Wilson and George Gallagher.  However, there appear to be a couple of interesting possibilities.  Current County Criminal Court judge Phil Sorrells' name has been mentioned as well as local attorney Kirk Claunch.  

Either Judge Wilson or Judge Gallagher, or for that matter former judge Gill, would likely make excellent District  Attorneys.  Their knowledge of the law is unquestioned and it would be hard to make the case that they are not well-qualified.  But as for Judge Sorrells and Kirk Claunch?  I don't know. 

Judge Sorrells' court is often the poorest-reviewed court in all of Tarrant County by attorneys.  He routinely fails to show up for court at even close to the scheduled time (of course there are other judges that do this, but I digress).  So to take the job as the administrative head of the county's chief law enforcement agency seems a stretch.  As for Claunch, honestly I don't even know who that is.  I'm sure he is a nice guy, but I've never heard of him.  

But what about this?  Former Assistant District Attorney, current head of the Trinity River Vision Authority, and son of longtime U.S. Congresswoman Kay Granger, J.D. Granger?  Could he be the appointment to fill Curry's spot?  

Whomever is appointed will necessarily have an inside track to the 2010 election.  At least that is the general rule of thumb in politics.  However, Governor Perry is also up for reelection in 2010 as well, and this will be anything but a cake-walk.  Governor Perry is up against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson.  

There are many inside the Republican party that believe Hutchinson can unseat the governor next year.  She is extremely popular, and perhaps more importantly, Governor Perry is beginning to be viewed as a bit of a extremist within the party.  The gubernatorial race could have an enormous effect on the Tarrant County race.

Imagine this scenario.  The governor appoints J.D. Granger to shore up support from his mother, Congresswoman Granger.  Seems like a shrewd political move.  But now Granger is directly tied to Perry, and any opponent can/ should point out that Granger is nothing but a political crony as the gubernatorial race heats up.  It could be devastating for Granger's future political career to have been appointed by a sitting governor only to lose in the primary.  

But this is true for anyone appointed by the governor.  They will be directly tied to a relatively unpopular governor who himself is in a nasty reelection contest against a more popular senator within the same party.  

Whomever receives the appointment may wish they hadn't.  It might well be more of the burden of an albatross than the benefit of coattails.

But what the hell do I know?