In Re Khai Le Appeal from Co Crim Ct at Law No 13 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition Dismissed as Moot, Motion to Stay Denied as Moot, and Memorandum Opinion filed September 25, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00711-CR NO. 14-14-00712-CR IN RE KHAI LE, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF PROHIBITION County Criminal Court at Law No. 13 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1881713 MEMORANDUM OPINION On September 3, 2014, relator Khai Le filed a petition for writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition in this court. See Tex. Gov t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator seeks relief by a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Don Smyth, presiding judge of the County Criminal Court at Law Number 13 of Harris County, to vacate a directive issued by the Harris County District Clerk purportedly recalling the entry of an order dismissing the underlying proceedings. Relator further seeks relief by a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Smyth from taking any additional actions in the underlying proceedings. Also on September 3, 2014, relator filed a motion to stay the underlying proceedings, pending the disposition of her petition by this court. On September 9, 2014, Judge Smyth signed an order withdrawing the challenged directive. In that order, Judge Smyth further stated that all pleadings and actions taken in the underlying proceedings following the trial court s order dated February 18, 2014 dismissing the case are void for want of jurisdiction. Judge Smyth s September 9 order renders moot relator s request for mandamus and prohibition relief in this court. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot relator s petition for writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition. We further deny as moot relator s motion to stay the underlying proceedings. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Donovan. Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.