Background
Mawule Tepe was charged in Bradley County with stalking and aggravated stalking across two general sessions court cases arising in late 2025 and early 2026. After the grand jury indicted him on both counts in February 2026, Tepe was represented by appointed counsel — initially the Public Defender, and later substitute appointed counsel after the Public Defender was permitted to withdraw in March 2026.
Despite being represented by counsel, Tepe filed pro se motions in both the general sessions court and the criminal court seeking recusal of the presiding judges. He alleged that the courts had exhibited bias by failing to rule on various pro se pleadings he had submitted challenging his bail conditions, the revocation of bail, the authority of the prosecutor, and the legality of his arrest. Tepe then filed a pro se petition in the Court of Criminal Appeals seeking accelerated interlocutory review of the recusal denials under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, section 2.01.
Neither the general sessions court nor the criminal court had actually ruled on Tepe’s recusal motions at the time he filed his appellate petition — a fact Tepe himself acknowledged in the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Criminal Appeals summarily dismissed the petition on two independent grounds. First, Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B authorizes an accelerated interlocutory appeal only from an order denying a motion for judicial disqualification. Because neither court below had issued any ruling on Tepe’s recusal motions, there was no order for the appellate court to review — a prerequisite that was plainly unmet.
Second, and separately, Rule 10B, section 1.01 expressly prohibits a party who is represented by counsel from filing a pro se motion under the rule. Because Tepe had appointed counsel at all relevant times, his pro se recusal motions in the trial courts were improper, the courts below were under no obligation to rule on them, and the pro se petition before the appellate court was itself a nullity. The court cited State v. Huerta, No. E2025-00063-CCA-R3-CD, 2026 WL 1450981 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 22, 2026), along with State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365 (Tenn. 1976), and State v. Cole, 629 S.W.2d 915 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981), in support of this principle.
Key Takeaways
- An accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B requires an actual order denying recusal — a court’s mere failure to rule does not trigger appellate jurisdiction.
- A represented criminal defendant has no right to file pro se recusal motions under Rule 10B, and trial courts are not obligated to act on such filings.
- A pro se appellate petition filed by a represented party under Rule 10B is a procedural nullity and subject to summary dismissal without requiring a response from the State.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Tennessee’s firm rule against hybrid representation in the recusal context: once a defendant has counsel, the right to challenge judicial impartiality must be exercised through that counsel, not through independent pro se filings. Courts have no duty to entertain — or even rule upon — motions filed in violation of that limitation, which forecloses any argument that a court’s silence on a pro se recusal motion itself constitutes a denial triggering appellate rights.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder of the strict procedural gatekeeping built into Rule 10B. The accelerated appeal mechanism is a narrow remedy tied to an actual denial order, and attempts to invoke it prematurely — or through improper pro se filings — will be dismissed summarily, leaving recusal challenges to be raised through counsel in the ordinary course of proceedings below.