in Re Joshua Tyrone Lane

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Joshua Tyrone Lane

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 25, 2015·No. 01-15-00461-CR·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

claimed was filed on January 15, 2015, in the trial court.1 On June 2, 2015, we construed relator’s motion as a petition for a writ of mandamus and requested a response because the relator alleged that the State had already responded to his DNA motion in the trial court. On June 8, 2015, the real party in interest, the State of Texas, represented by the Brazoria County District Attorney’s Office, timely filed a response attaching the trial court’s January 16, 2015 order denying relator’s post-conviction DNA testing motion.

Because relator has received the relief requested in his mandamus petition, we dismiss the petition as moot. See In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (dismissing mandamus petition seeking cost information to order transcripts as moot after “the information sought by relator was provided to him”) (citations omitted); In re Duncan, 62 S.W.3d 333, 334 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (dismissing mandamus petition seeking to vacate arrest warrant as moot after trial court issued another order vacating prior arrest warrant).

1 The underlying cases are Ex parte Joshua Tyrone Lane, Cause Nos. 54972-1 and 54973-1, in the 300th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the Honorable K. Randall Hufstetler presiding, who is listed as the respondent.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus as moot.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

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

Opinion issued June 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

claimed was filed on January 15, 2015, in the trial court.1 On June 2, 2015, we construed relator’s motion as a petition for a writ of mandamus and requested a response because the relator alleged that the State had already responded to his DNA motion in the trial court. On June 8, 2015, the real party in interest, the State of Texas, represented by the Brazoria County District Attorney’s Office, timely filed a response attaching the trial court’s January 16, 2015 order denying relator’s post-conviction DNA testing motion.

Because relator has received the relief requested in his mandamus petition, we dismiss the petition as moot. See In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (dismissing mandamus petition seeking cost information to order transcripts as moot after “the information sought by relator was provided to him”) (citations omitted); In re Duncan, 62 S.W.3d 333, 334 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (dismissing mandamus petition seeking to vacate arrest warrant as moot after trial court issued another order vacating prior arrest warrant).

1 The underlying cases are Ex parte Joshua Tyrone Lane, Cause Nos. 54972-1 and 54973-1, in the 300th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the Honorable K. Randall Hufstetler presiding, who is listed as the respondent.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus as moot.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

in Re Joshua Tyrone Lane, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

in Re Joshua Tyrone Lane (in Re Joshua Tyrone Lane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related