In Re Bruce Molzan v. the State of Texas
Opinion
Opinion issued March 18, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b). On January 29, 2025, Judge Nathan Milliron vacated the
November 11, 2024 order that is the basis of this mandamus and entered an order
denying Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Witnesses.2
Because relator has now received the relief he requested from the trial court,
we reinstate the original proceeding and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus
and any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Guiney.
2 Appellate courts may take judicial notice of facts outside the record when necessary to determine jurisdiction. See TEX. R. EVID. 201(d); Freedom Commc'ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623–24 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam) (taking judicial notice of plea agreement entered in federal court, which was not contained in appellate record, because agreement was relevant to jurisdictional issue); In re Lombana, 542 S.W.3d 699, 701 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (taking judicial notice of order that is publicly available on district clerk’s website). Because the issue of mootness implicates subject-matter jurisdiction, we may take judicial notice of facts outside the record in determining whether the case is moot. See Freedom Commc’ns, 372 S.W.3d at 624. And, we may do so sua sponte. See TEX. R. EVID. 201(c)(1); see Graves v. Diehl, No. 01-00-00412-CV, 2006 WL 1699527, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 22, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“Though [appellees] have not requested us to take judicial notice of the records from the bankruptcy proceeding, we may do so sua sponte.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In Re Bruce Molzan v. the State of Texas (In Re Bruce Molzan v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.