In Re Joe N. Woodard v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In Re Joe N. Woodard v. the State of Texas

DecidedApril 13, 2023

Docket11-23-00069-CR

StatusPublished

This text of In Re Joe N. Woodard v. the State of Texas (In Re Joe N. Woodard v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Joe N. Woodard v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed April 13, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

Nos. 11-23-00064-CR, 11-23-00065-CR, 11-23-00066-CR, 11-23- 00067-CR, 11-23-00068-CR, 11-23-00069-CR, & 11-23-00070-CR __________

IN RE JOE N. WOODARD

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Joe N. Woodard, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in each of his seven criminal cases. In each petition, Relator asserts that the Honorable Elizabeth Leonard, the district judge of the 238th District Court in Midland County, has failed to rule on his motion for a nunc pro tunc order within a reasonable time. We dismiss the petitions for want of jurisdiction. In each petition, Relator states that he filed a motion for a nunc pro tunc order on September 16, 2022. Relator further states that, on March 15, 2023, he requested the trial court’s court coordinator to set the motion on the trial court’s docket. In support, Relator attaches uncertified “copies” of his motion for a nunc pro tunc order and his request for a setting. Relator requests that we order the trial court to “make a written ruling” on his motion for a nunc pro tunc order. We requested a response from Judge Leonard. In her response, Judge Leonard provided us with a copy of her order denying Woodard’s motion. By ruling on the motion, Judge Leonard has provided Relator the relief he seeks from our court in his mandamus petitions, and his petitions are now moot. We lack jurisdiction to decide a moot controversy. In re Guardianship of Fairley, 650 S.W.3d 372, 379 (Tex. 2022). Accordingly, we dismiss the petitions for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

April 13, 2023 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

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

Opinion filed April 13, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

Nos. 11-23-00064-CR, 11-23-00065-CR, 11-23-00066-CR, 11-23- 00067-CR, 11-23-00068-CR, 11-23-00069-CR, & 11-23-00070-CR __________

IN RE JOE N. WOODARD

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Joe N. Woodard, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in each of his seven criminal cases. In each petition, Relator asserts that the Honorable Elizabeth Leonard, the district judge of the 238th District Court in Midland County, has failed to rule on his motion for a nunc pro tunc order within a reasonable time. We dismiss the petitions for want of jurisdiction. In each petition, Relator states that he filed a motion for a nunc pro tunc order on September 16, 2022. Relator further states that, on March 15, 2023, he requested the trial court’s court coordinator to set the motion on the trial court’s docket. In support, Relator attaches uncertified “copies” of his motion for a nunc pro tunc order and his request for a setting. Relator requests that we order the trial court to “make a written ruling” on his motion for a nunc pro tunc order. We requested a response from Judge Leonard. In her response, Judge Leonard provided us with a copy of her order denying Woodard’s motion. By ruling on the motion, Judge Leonard has provided Relator the relief he seeks from our court in his mandamus petitions, and his petitions are now moot. We lack jurisdiction to decide a moot controversy. In re Guardianship of Fairley, 650 S.W.3d 372, 379 (Tex. 2022). Accordingly, we dismiss the petitions for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

April 13, 2023 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In Re Joe N. Woodard v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joe-n-woodard-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.