Case Name: Hon. Jerry WOODARD, Presiding Judge, 205th District Court of El Paso County, Relator, v. THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1998-08-21
Citations: 991 S.W.2d 795
Docket Number: No. 73,133
Parties: Hon. Jerry WOODARD, Presiding Judge, 205th District Court of El Paso County, Relator, v. THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
Judges: BAIRD and HOLLAND, JJ., not participating.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 991
Pages: 795–798

Head Matter:
Hon. Jerry WOODARD, Presiding Judge, 205th District Court of El Paso County, Relator, v. THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
No. 73,133.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Aug. 21, 1998.
Richard Barajas, Judge, 8th Court of Appeals, El Paso, for appellant.
Jerry Woodard, Judge, 205th District Court, Relator, El Paso, Matthew Paul, State’s Attorney, Austin, for State.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
This is an original action seeking a writ of mandamus against the Eighth Court of Appeals. State district judge Jerry Woodard maintains the court of appeals clearly abused its discretion by conditionally granting mandamus relief against him in a pending capital murder prosecution. In re Castillo, No. 08-97-00479-CR, 1998 WL 197656, opinion vacated and withdrawn on August 21,1998, (Tex.App.—El Paso, April 28, 1998).
Richard Castillo has been indicted by an El Paso County grand jury for the offense of capital murder. Judge Woodard has been assigned to preside over the trial. Castillo has filed numerous motions seeking the recusal of Judge Woodard.
On October 22, 1997, Judge Woodard denied Castillo's fourth amended motion to recuse. He did not forward the matter to the presiding judge of the Sixth Administrative Judicial District. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 18a(d).
The court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief. It found Judge Woodard violated a ministerial duty by failing to refer the recusal matter and Castillo had no adequate remedy at law in which to complain of the violation. Castillo, No. 08-97-00479-CR, 1998 WL 197656 at *5.
It is a clear abuse of discretion for a court of appeals to grant mandamus relief to an aggrieved party with an adequate remedy at law. See Alvarez v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 977 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) and Ater and Lewis v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). A court of appeals should not grant mandamus relief to the complaining party on a recusal motion under Tex.R.Civ.P. 18a because the party has an adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal from the final judgment. In re Union Pacific Resources Company, 969 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.1998)
In the instant cause the court of appeals clearly abused its discretion by granting mandamus relief against Judge Woodard. In the event Castillo is convicted and appeals, he will have an adequate remedy at law by way of a point of error on appeal complaining of Judge Woodard's action on the fourth amended motion to recuse.
Judge Woodard is entitled to the relief which he seeks. We conditionally grant a writ of mandamus and direct the court of appeals to vacate and withdraw its opinion granting mandamus relief. The writ of mandamus from this Court will issue if the court of appeals fails to comply with this Court's directive.
BAIRD and HOLLAND, JJ., not participating.