Hinojosa, Ernesto

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hinojosa, Ernesto

DecidedSeptember 14, 2011

DocketWR-25,043-06

StatusPublished

This text of Hinojosa, Ernesto (Hinojosa, Ernesto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hinojosa, Ernesto, (Tex. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-25,043-06

ERNESTO HINOJOSA, Relator

v.

79^th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Respondent

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 90-11-7309

FROM JIM WELLS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the 79^th Judicial District Court of Jim Wells County, and that at the same time he filed a motion for recusal of the habeas judge on the basis that the judge was the prosecutor at his trial.

This Court has received Relator's habeas application, along with a copy of the motion for recusal. Although the habeas judge did not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, and took no other action within the applicable time period before the application was forwarded to this Court, there is no indication that any action was taken on the recusal motion either. This Court has recently held that when a habeas applicant complies with Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the habeas judge has no option but to either recuse himself or forward the matter to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district for a recusal hearing before another judge. Ex parte Sinegar, 324 S.W.3d 578, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. The respondent, the judge of the 79^th District Court of Jim Wells County, is ordered to file a response with this Court by stating whether he has taken action consistent with Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on Relator's recusal motion, and if not, why not. This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus will be held in abeyance until the respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.-

Filed: September 14, 2011

Do not publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-25,043-06

ERNESTO HINOJOSA, Relator

v.

79^th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Respondent

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 90-11-7309

FROM JIM WELLS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the 79^th Judicial District Court of Jim Wells County, and that at the same time he filed a motion for recusal of the habeas judge on the basis that the judge was the prosecutor at his trial.

This Court has received Relator's habeas application, along with a copy of the motion for recusal. Although the habeas judge did not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, and took no other action within the applicable time period before the application was forwarded to this Court, there is no indication that any action was taken on the recusal motion either. This Court has recently held that when a habeas applicant complies with Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the habeas judge has no option but to either recuse himself or forward the matter to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district for a recusal hearing before another judge. Ex parte Sinegar, 324 S.W.3d 578, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. The respondent, the judge of the 79^th District Court of Jim Wells County, is ordered to file a response with this Court by stating whether he has taken action consistent with Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on Relator's recusal motion, and if not, why not. This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus will be held in abeyance until the respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.-

Filed: September 14, 2011

Do not publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hinojosa, Ernesto, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinojosa-ernesto-texcrimapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack