ERNESTO HINOJOSA v. 79th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (other)
Annotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-25,043-06
ERNESTO HINOJOSA, Relator
v.
79th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Respondent
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
CAUSE NO. 90-11-7309
FROM JIM WELLS COUNTY
Per curiam.
O R D E R
Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the 79th Judicial District Court of Jim Wells County, and that at the same time he filed a motion for recusal of the habeas judge on the basis that the judge was the prosecutor at his trial.
This Court has received Relator's habeas application, along with a copy of the motion for recusal. Although the habeas judge did not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, and took no other action within the applicable time period before the application was forwarded to this Court, there is no indication that any action was taken on the recusal motion either. This Court has recently held that when a habeas applicant complies with Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the habeas judge has no option but to either recuse himself or forward the matter to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district for a recusal hearing before another judge. Ex parte Sinegar, 324 S.W.3d 578, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. The respondent, the judge of the 79th District Court of Jim Wells County, is ordered to file a response with this Court by stating whether he has taken action consistent with Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on Relator's recusal motion, and if not, why not. This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus will be held in abeyance until the respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.-
Filed: September 14, 2011
Do not publish
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
