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Do not publish.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.

2