Joseph Ervin Robbins v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 20, 2007
• Docket: 10-06-00206-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-06-00206-CR

Joseph Ervin Robbins,

                                                                                    Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                                    Appellee

From the 18th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. F38796

RECUSAL ORDER

            I hereby recuse myself from further participation in this case.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., art. 30.01 (Vernon 2006); Tex. Code Jud. Conduct, Cannons 1, 2, and 3 (B)(8), reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G app. B (Vernon 2005); Tex. R. App. P. 16.1 and 16.2; and Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b(1)(c) and 18b(2)(a) and (f)(i).

                                                                        TOM GRAY

                                                                        Chief Justice

                                                                        Date: ____________________________

he mere filing of a pleading or letter with the clerk does not impute knowledge to the trial court.  See In re Flores, No. 04-03-00449-CV, 2003 WL 21480964 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 25, 2003, orig. proceeding).  Whitfield has not shown that he has brought the matter to the attention of the trial judge.

            Because Whitfield has not shown that he is entitled to relief, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed July 7, 2010

[OT06]

---

[1] Whitfield’s “application” for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies.  It does not include the certification required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j).  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j).  Copies of the supporting documents are not certified or sworn to, as required by Rules 52.3(k) and 52.7(a)(1).  See id. 52.3(k), 52.7(a)(1).  And it lacks proof of service on the Freestone County District Attorney, a Real-Party-in-Interest.  See id. 52.2.  A copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties to the proceeding and must contain proof of service.  Id. 9.5.  Because of our disposition and to expedite it, we will implement Rule 2 and suspend these rules in this proceeding only.  Id. 2.

[2] Article 64.04 provides:  “After examining the results of testing under Article 64.03, the convicting court shall hold a hearing and make a finding as to whether, had the results been available during the trial of the offense, it is reasonably probable that the person would not have been convicted.”  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.04 (Vernon 2006); see In re Jackson, 238 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, orig. proceeding).