In Re: Pablo D. Zuazu Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 of Henderson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-15-00079-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § PABLO D. ZUAZU, § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator Pablo D. Zuazu filed this original proceeding requesting a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to rule on his motion for a twenty-day hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 § 21(b) (West Supp. 2014). After Relator filed his mandamus petition, the trial court ordered Relator released on a $2,500.00 personal bond. The court further ordered that “the Henderson County Attorney’s Office and/or Henderson County Sheriff’s Department release any hold they have on this Defendant in reference to this pending Motion.” By letter dated April 14, 2015, the clerk of this court informed Relator that this proceeding would be referred to the court for dismissal as moot unless, on or before April 24, 2015, he explained why the cause should be retained on the court’s docket. That deadline has passed, and Relator has not responded to this court’s notice. Accordingly, we dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot. Opinion delivered April 30, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT APRIL 30, 2015 NO. 12-15-00079-CR PABLO D. ZUAZU, Relator V. HON. SCOTT WILLIAMS, Respondent ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by PABLO D. ZUAZU, who is the relator in Cause No. 2009-0698CL, pending on the docket of the County Court at Law No. 1 of Henderson, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on March 30, 2015, and the same having been duly considered, it is the opinion of this Court that a writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

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.