A Tennessee court has denied an appeal from Brandon Johnson, who sought to have a judge recused from his ongoing legal proceedings. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee ruled on September 16, 2026, affirming the trial court's decision to deny Johnson's motion for recusal. This ruling is significant as it impacts Johnson's ongoing efforts to challenge his conviction for first-degree murder.
Brandon Johnson was convicted in February 2018 for first-degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, resulting in a life sentence plus ten additional years. His case has been the subject of various legal motions, including a petition for post-conviction relief and a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which are currently pending in the trial court. The ruling on the recusal motion is particularly relevant as it addresses concerns about judicial impartiality in the context of Johnson's ongoing legal challenges.
The dispute began when Johnson filed a motion to recuse the trial judge, claiming that the judge's previous rulings could lead a reasonable person to question their impartiality. Johnson argued that his motion was not properly docketed and that the trial court failed to address it adequately. He contended that the denial of his request for certain medical and pharmacy records from a state witness could also raise questions about the judge's fairness.
In response, the trial court ruled against Johnson's recusal motion on both procedural and substantive grounds. The court found that the motion did not meet the requirements outlined in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, which governs motions for recusal. Specifically, the court noted that Johnson's motion did not affirmatively state that it was not presented for any improper purpose, such as harassment or unnecessary delays. The trial court also concluded that adverse rulings alone do not typically warrant a judge's recusal.
The Court of Criminal Appeals, led by Judge Camille R. McMullen, along with Judges J. Ross Dyer and Matthew J. Wilson, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court stated, "Simply stated, the trial court’s adverse ruling would not cause a reasonable person to question the trial court’s impartiality." This affirmation means that Johnson's motion for recusal has been officially denied, and the trial court's order stands.
This ruling has implications for Johnson's ongoing legal battles. It underscores the challenges defendants face when seeking to disqualify judges based on perceived bias. The court's decision reinforces that not all adverse rulings indicate bias or prejudice that would necessitate a judge's recusal. As a result, Johnson remains under the same trial judge as he continues to pursue his coram nobis petition.
The ruling also highlights the procedural requirements necessary for a successful recusal motion. The court emphasized that parties must adhere strictly to the rules governing recusal, including providing adequate grounds for the motion and ensuring proper service to the opposing party. Johnson's failure to meet these procedural requirements contributed to the court's decision to deny his appeal.
Looking ahead, Johnson may still pursue his coram nobis petition, which seeks to challenge the credibility of a witness whose testimony played a significant role in his conviction. However, with the recusal motion denied, he will have to navigate the remainder of his case under the same judge. The court's ruling sets a precedent for future cases regarding the standards for judicial recusal in Tennessee.
As of now, there are no indications that Johnson plans to appeal this ruling further. However, the legal landscape can change rapidly, and it remains to be seen how this decision will influence his ongoing efforts to overturn his conviction.