1993, pet. ref’d) (where defendant claimed the use of four different judges resulted "in discontinuity and lack of familiarity by the judges with previous proceedings”); Jimenez v. State, 838 S.W.2d 661, 665-667 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (where defendant complained he was denied a fair trial and due process when, after two days of trial, there was a substitution of judges). See also Webb v. State, 755 S.W.2d 222, 225 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd) (Smith, J., dissenting, states that courts "should be reluctant to approve the assessment of punishment by a judge who did not hear the evidence that led to conviction, when the judge who did is available”). 11 . See CNA Ins. Co. v. Scheffey, 828 S.W.2d 785, 793 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1992, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Rule 18a applies to recusal matters in
holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion lacked specificity holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion was not made in good faith holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendant failed to establish even a threshold basis for his substitution motion holding that where appellant moved to recuse trial judge from deciding the motion for new trial the judge of the administrative district was required to designate a judge to hear the recusal motion holding that action of judge assigned to hear a motion to recuse in signing an order denying the motion was not a proceeding required to be carried out from in the county seat