In Re: The State of Texas Appeal from 112th District Court of Pecos County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § IN RE: THE STATE OF TEXAS, RELATOR. No. 08-21-00106-CR § § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING § IN MANDAMUS § § MEMORANDUM OPINION The State of Texas (“Relator”) has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Honorable Pedro Gomez, Jr., judge of the 112th District Court of Pecos County, Texas, contending that the trial court failed to issue requested findings of fact and conclusions of law after granting a motion to suppress in Trial Cause No. P-3968-112-CR. See State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 700 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006)(requiring a trial court to express its findings of fact and conclusions of law when requested by a losing party after rendering a decision on a motion to suppress). The State contends the findings are necessary to allow it to prosecute its interlocutory appeal from the suppression order. That appeal is docketed in a parallel proceeding before this Court as The State of Texas v. Satdiel Jeremy Dominguez, No. 08-21-00036-CR. On June 29, 2021, the Pecos County District Clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law issued on June 23, 2021, in Trial Cause No. P-3968-112-CR. The trial court’s issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law has rendered this matter moot, since there is no longer a live controversy over the status of past due findings. See In re Caballero, 594 S.W.3d 843, 846 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2020, orig. proceeding)(mandamus may be mooted by certain trial court actions while the petition remains pending). Because the trial court has issued the requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, we dismiss this mandamus action as moot. June 30, 2021 YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ. (Do Not Publish) 2

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.