Woodard v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 73,133
| Decision Date | 21 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 73,133,73,133 |
| Parties | Hon. Jerry WOODARD, Presiding Judge, 205th District Court of El Paso County, Relator, v. THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Richard Barajas, Judge, 8th Court of Appeals, El Paso, for appellant.
Jerry Woodard, Judge, 205th District Court, Relator, El Paso, Matthew Paul, State's Attorney, Austin, for State.
Before the court en banc.
This is an original action seeking a writ of mandamus against the Eighth Court of Appeals. State district judge Jerry Woodard maintains the court of appeals clearly abused its discretion by conditionally granting mandamus relief against him in a pending capital murder prosecution. In re Castillo, No. 08-97-00479-CR, 1998 WL 197656, opinion vacated and withdrawn on August 21, 1998, (Tex.App.--El Paso, April 23, 1998).
Richard Castillo has been indicted by an El Paso County grand jury for the offense of capital murder. Judge Woodard has been assigned to preside over the trial. Castillo has filed numerous motions seeking the recusal of Judge Woodard.
On October 22, 1997, Judge Woodard denied Castillo's fourth amended motion to recuse. He did not forward the matter to the presiding judge of the Sixth Administrative Judicial District. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 18a(d).
The court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief. It found Judge Woodard violated a ministerial duty by failing to refer the recusal matter and Castillo had no adequate remedy at law in which to complain of the violation. Castillo, No. 08-97-00479-CR, 1998 WL 197656 at * 5.
It is a clear abuse of discretion for a court of appeals to grant mandamus relief to an aggrieved party with an adequate remedy at law. See Alvarez v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 977 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) and Ater and Lewis v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). A court of appeals should not grant mandamus relief to the complaining party on a recusal motion under Tex.R.Civ.P. 18a because the party has an adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal from the final judgment. In re Union Pacific Resources Company, 969 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.1998)
In the instant cause the court of appeals clearly abused its discretion by granting mandamus relief against Judge Woodard. In the event Castillo is convicted and appeals, he will have an adequate remedy at law by way of a point of error on appeal complaining of Judge Woodard's action on the fourth amended motion to recuse.
Judge Woodard is entitled to the relief which he seeks. We conditionally grant a writ of mandamus and direct the court of appeals to vacate and withdraw its opinion granting mandamus relief. The writ of mandamus from this Court will issue if the court of appeals fails to comply with this Court's directive.
The court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief against relator, ordering him to either recuse himself from the underlying capital murder proceeding, or in the alternative, to immediately request the presiding judge of the administrative district to hear the pending motion to recuse. Relator claims that the court of appeals abused its discretion in doing so. This Court agrees and directs the court of appeals to vacate and withdraw its opinion granting mandamus relief. Because I agree with the court of appeals' decision, I dissent to this Court's directive against the court of appeals.
Relator clearly violated a ministerial duty by failing to either recuse himself or refer the recusal matter to the presiding judge of the administrative district per Tex.R.Civ.Pro. 18a, which applies to criminal cases. Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). Rule 18a explicitly states that upon the timely filing of a proper recusal motion, "Prior to any further proceedings in the case, the judge shall either recuse himself or request the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district to assign a judge to hear such motion." [Emphasis added.] That provision leaves the trial judge no discretion--he shall either recuse himself or request the presiding judge to assign a judge to hear the motion. In this case, relator did not do so with respect to the last motion to recuse, but rather relator himself denied the motion without forwarding the matter to the presiding judge which is in direct contravention of Rule 18a.
This Court states that the defendant, if he is convicted and appeals, will have an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ryan, No. 10-04-00128-CR (TX 10/20/2004)
... ... RYAN ... No. 10-04-00128-CR ... Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco ... Opinion ... aggrieved party with an adequate remedy at law." Woodard v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 991 S.W.2d 795, 796 (Tex ... ...
- Elmakiss v. Hughes
-
Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C.
... ... No. 01-04-00101-CV ... No. 01-04-00484-CV ... Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st District) ... ...
-
In re Chavez
...991 S.W.2d 795, 796 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), Relators have an adequate remedy at law and therefore, are not entitled to mandamus relief. In Woodard, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that this Court had abused its discretion in granting mandamus relief against Judge Jerry Woodard by our opinio......