In Re William L. Arnett v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In Re William L. Arnett v. the State of Texas

DecidedMarch 6, 2025

Docket11-25-00035-CR

StatusPublished

This text of In Re William L. Arnett v. the State of Texas (In Re William L. Arnett 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 William L. Arnett v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed March 6, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

Nos. 11-25-00034-CR & 11-25-00035-CR __________

IN RE WILLIAM L. ARNETT

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON Relator, William L. Arnett, filed in this court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus on February 13, 2025, alleging that the trial court failed to refer his pro se motion to recuse to the regional presiding judge pursuant to Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(f)(1)(B). On February 25, we received the State’s response and several attached documents, including the trial court’s order referring Relator’s recusal motion to the regional presiding judge. Because the trial court has complied with Rule 18a by forwarding Relator’s motion, Relator has obtained his requested relief, and this proceeding is therefore moot. In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Johnson, 599 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, orig. proceeding); see In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d at 534.

JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE

March 6, 2025 Do not publish.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 March 6, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

Nos. 11-25-00034-CR & 11-25-00035-CR __________

IN RE WILLIAM L. ARNETT

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON Relator, William L. Arnett, filed in this court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus on February 13, 2025, alleging that the trial court failed to refer his pro se motion to recuse to the regional presiding judge pursuant to Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(f)(1)(B). On February 25, we received the State’s response and several attached documents, including the trial court’s order referring Relator’s recusal motion to the regional presiding judge. Because the trial court has complied with Rule 18a by forwarding Relator’s motion, Relator has obtained his requested relief, and this proceeding is therefore moot. In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Johnson, 599 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, orig. proceeding); see In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d at 534.

JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE

March 6, 2025 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 William L. Arnett v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-william-l-arnett-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack