This c ase h as b een in the 29 6 Judicial D istrict C ourt. H owe v er, on Septem ber 2 6, 2008 , th e th 1 admin is tr at iv e jud g e of

th e di stri ct

tr an sf er re d th e ca se to th e 36 6 Judic ia l D is tr ic t C ourt . th 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 086

I N RE J OHN R. ROACH, CRI M I NAL DI S TR I CT AT TORN EY , R e l at or - M ov ant
ON M OTI ON TO S TA Y P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT AND M OTI ON F OR LE AVE TO F I LE P ET I TI ON F OR W RI T OF M ANDAMUS F RO M CA US E NO . W 2 9 6 - 8 0 2 3 3 - 9 0 I N T HE 3 6 6 DI S T RI CT CO UR T OF TH 1 CO LLI N CO UNTY P e rC u r ia m . P RI CE , J ., not part i ci pat i ng. O P I N I O N T hi s opi ni on conce r ns a r eques tfora s t ay of t he pr ocee di ngs bel ow and a mot i on for l eave to fi l e a peti t i on for w ri tof m and am us. O n O ct ober7, 2008, t hi s C our tr eceiv ed a s ubs equentw r i tappl i cat i on i n w hi ch appl i cantC har l es D ean H ood as s er t ed thathe w as deni ed a fai rt r i al beca us e of a n al l egedr om ant i c r el at i ons hi p betw een the tr i al j udge and the pr o sec u tor . H ood as s er t ed thatt he

cl ai m m ett he di ct at es of A r t i cl e 11. 071, § 5, beca us e he pr es ent ed new fac t s gl eane d fr om depos i t i ons gi ven pur s uantt o T exas R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 202. O n N ovember 19, 2008,
w e or der ed the t r i al cour tt o col l ect or adduce anyevi dence i tdeemed nece s s aryt o m ake a
rec o m m en d ati o n o n (1) w h ethe r t h e d o ctri n e o f lac h es b ars the co n side rati o n o f a p p li ca n t’ s
c la im , a n d (2 ) w h e th e r a p p lic a n t m e e ts th e d ic ta te s o f A rt ic le 1 1 .0 7 1 , § 5
. E x par t e H

ood , N o . W R -41 , 1 6 8 -11 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . N o v . 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 ). W e o rd ere d the tri al co u rtto return its re c o m m e n d a tio n s an d th e re c o rd o f a n y p ro c e e d in g s co n d u c ted to th is C o u rt w ith in six ty (6 0 ) d a y s o f

th e d a te o f

th e o rd e r. S h o rtlya f

ter re c e iv in g th e o rd e r, th e trial c o u rt (re sp o n d e n t), citin g th e a u th o rity
v ested in itb ythis C o u rt ’s N o v em b er 1 9 o rde r, ap p o inted a m aster to c o n d u ct an yn ec essa ry th hear i ngs and t o ot herw i s e t ake e vi dence i n t he court ’ s s t ead. T he St at e o bjected t o t he app oint m ent, and t he co urtov erruled i t s object i on s. T he court ’ s appoi nt m entw as not author i zed. T he aut hor i t y t o appoi nta mast eri s s et
o u t in st atutes . S ee Si m ps on v. C anal es , 806 S. W
. 2d 802 ( T ex. 1991) ( hol di ng t hatT exas R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 171 i s t he exc l us i ve author i t yfort he appoi nt m entof m as t er s i n our
s t at e court s )
. T exas R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 171 pr ovi des for t he appoi nt m ent of a M as t er i n C hance r y . A cour t m ay m ake s uch an a ppoi nt m entonl yi n exce pt i onal cas es and forgood
caus e. T he T exas Supr eme Court m ade cl ear i n the Si m ps on c a se th a t th e “ e x c e p tio n a l” condi t i on i s not m et m er el y by a s how i ng t hat t he cas e i s compl i cat ed ort i m e- cons um i ng, or th a t th e c o u rt is b u s y . Si m ps on , 806 S. W
. 2d at811. I n fac t , t he courtexpr es s l ys t at ed t hatt he compl ex ca s es ar e ac tual l yt he verycas es w hi ch mostneed a nd benef i t f r om t he
s u p e rv is io n o f a n e x p e ri e n c e d tr ia l ju d g e . Id
. T hes e pri nci pl es ar e l i kew i s e appl i cabl e t o t he in sta n t ca se . F u rth e r, th e f a c t th a t th is is a d e a th p e n a lty c a se d o e s n o t m a k e it “e x c e p tio n a l”
a s th a t te rm is c o n te m p la te d in R u le 1 7 1
. T e x a s G o v e rn m e n t C o d e C h a p ter 5 4 a lso p ro v id e s f o r th e a p p o in tm e n t o f

m a ste rs in
var i ous cas es and s i tuat i ons . E ach of t he s ubchapt er s i n t h i s s ect i on pr ovi des fort he
a p p o in tm e n t o f a m a ste r, m a g istra te, re f e re e , o r a ss o c iate ju d g e in a p a rticu lar c o u n tyo r in
a par t i cul arci r cumst ance . H ow ever , none of them provi de fort he appoi nt m entof a mast er i n a d e a t h p e n a l t y c a s e ( t r i a l o rh a b e a s ) i n C o l l i n C o u n t y. G i ven t he ci r cumst ance s of t he i ns t ant cas e and the l aw as i tcurr ent l ys t ands , w e fi nd t hatt he re s pondent t r i al cour t has exce eded i t s author i t yi n t he i ns t antcas e byappoi nt i ng a
m as t ert o conduct the pr ocee di ngs curr ent l y befor e i t . A ccor di ngl y , w e condi t i onal l ygr ant
r el at or ’ s pet i t i on forw r i tof m andamus a nd di r ectt he di s t r i ctj udge t o vaca t e i t s or der appoi nt i ng a mast eri n t h e ca se. T he w r i tw i l l i s s ue onl yi f t he di s t r i ctcour tfai l s t o t ake appr opr i at e act i on i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s opi ni on. Fur t her , w e denyr el at or ’ s m ot i on t o s t ay t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w . H o w e v e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r tw i l l b e g i v e n a n a d d i t i o n a l s i x t y ( 6 0 ) d a ys fr om t he dat e of thi s or dert o compl yw i t h our or der of N ovember 19, 2008. A nyext ens i ons to th is d e a d lin e s h a ll b e s o u g h t d ir e c tly f ro m th is C o u rt . D el i ver ed: J anuary28, 2009 D o n ot publi sh