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

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March 6, 2025 Do not publish.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.