Facts: After the trial judge denied Mr. Green’s motion for recusal, Mr. Green filed an accelerated appeal per Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. It did not go well.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

Tennessee law emphasizes the importance following the mandatory requirements of Rule 10B when appealing the denial of recusal petitions. Among other things, Rule10B requires that each petition for recusal appeal contain:

• a statement of the issues presented for review;
• a statement of the facts relevant to the issues presented for review;
• argument regarding the issues presented, including the reasons why appellate relief is appropriate, with citations to legal authorities; and
• a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.

In expedited interlocutory appeals under Rule 10B, the only record the appellate court generally has is the record provided by the appellant with their petition. As a result of the accelerated nature of these appeals, meticulous compliance with Rule 10B is required regarding the content of the record provided on appeal.

Here, Mr. Green’s recusal appeal fell far short of “meticulous compliance”:

To put it simply, in the context of an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Rule 10B, we cannot physically see something that is not provided in connection with the initiating petition. The fact that filings may exist in a trial court’s record does not enable us to review them in connection with the appeal if they are not provided to us.

Here, Mr. Green’s notice of accelerated appeal is not accompanied by any additional documents beyond the trial court’s order and an envelope. We do not have a copy of the recusal motion or any other document filed in the trial court. Due to these deficiencies, this Court cannot meet our obligation to decide the appeal on an expedited basis, and we hereby dismiss the appeal.

With the filing deficiencies being fatal to Mr. Green’s appeal, the Court dismissed it.

K.O.’s Comment: This is consistent with the opinions in Rothberg, where the appellant submitted documents “supposedly” filed with the trial court but which were not file-stamped copies and cited other documents in the trial court record that were not provided to the Court of Appeals, and Judzewitsch, where the petition for recusal appeal contained no recusal motion, no court order, no supporting documents filed in the trial court, etc.

Source: Blevins v. Green (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, March 8, 2023).

If you found this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.