In re Allan Latoi Story Appeal from 19th District Court of McLennan County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-20-00215-CR IN RE ALLAN LATOI STORY Original Proceeding From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011-2499-C1 MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Allan Latoi Story filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent, the Judge of the 19th Judicial District Court of McLennan County, to rule on his motion requesting a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s records that have been filed in appellate cause no. 10-20-00034-CR, Story’s pending appeal from an order denying his motion for post-conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.1 The Court subsequently received a copy of the trial court’s order, ordering The petition for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. It also lacks a proper proof of service. See id. R. 9.5. Story, however, has simultaneously filed a “Motion for Suspension of Rules,” requesting that we implement Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend Rule of 1 the district clerk to send Story a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s records that have been filed in appellate cause no. 10-20-00034-CR. Because a ruling has been made on Story’s motion, Story’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999) (“Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies.”). MATT JOHNSON Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Neill, and Justice Johnson Petition dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 17, 2021 Do not publish [OT06] Appellate Procedure 9.5’s proof-of-service requirement for the petition. See id. R. 2, 9.5. Because of our disposition and to expedite it, we grant Story’s motion and implement Rule 2 to suspend the rules in this proceeding only. See id. R. 2. In re Story Page 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.