IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. JOSH SCHAFFER, RELATOR Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (other per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-88,366-01 IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS, EX REL. JOSH SCHAFFER, Relator ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION ANCILLARY TO CAUSE NOS. 24975, 24976, 24977, 24978, 24979, 24980 & 24981 IN THE 252ND DISTRICT COURT FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY Per curiam. YEARY , J., filed a dissenting opinion. OPINION Relator filed a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition, invoking our constitutional authority to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition in criminal law matters. TEX . CONST . art. V, § 5; Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784, 788 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The petition requested that this Court issue the writ of prohibition against the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office, preventing it from taking any further action with respect to the Relator’s fees in cases from which the District Attorney recused himself and his office. Respondent, the Jefferson County District Attorney, provided a response arguing, among other things, that it was not recused in every cause number, that recusal in these cases did not reach 2 post-trial proceedings, and that this Court does not have prohibition jurisdiction because Relator’s claim is not ripe. After consideration of the prohibition record and the Respondent’s arguments, we grant Relator leave to file and conditionally grant prohibition relief. Respondent, the Criminal District Attorney of Jefferson County, voluntarily recused himself and is disqualified in the causes ancillary to cause numbers 24975, 24976, 24977, 24978, 24979, 24980, and 24981, in the 252nd District Court, now subject to expunction orders. He is directed to take no further action relating to matters arising from the aforementioned cases. The writ of prohibition will issue only in the event the Respondent fails to comply with this opinion. Filed: December 12, 2018 Do not publish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.