IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-06-00091-CV
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice-Institutional Division,
Appellant
v.
Jeanette Utz,
Appellee
From the 278th District Court
Madison County, Texas
Trial Court No. 05-10875-278-01
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Appellant, Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division, after filing a notice of appeal, notified this Court that a settlement agreement had been reached and requested an abatement of the appeal during the settlement process. The appeal was abated.
TDCJ now advises this Court that the case has been fully settled and asks to dismiss the appeal. The appeal is reinstated and is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Appeal reinstated and dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed January 24, 2007
[CV06]
pan>
When a trial court refuses to hear a habeas application, “an applicant’s remedies are limited. Some remedies available to an applicant in that situation are to present the application to another district judge having jurisdiction, or under proper circumstances, to pursue a writ of mandamus.” Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d 913, 914-15 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref’d); accord In re Davis, 990 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding). The only “proper circumstances” for mandamus relief identified by the Court in Hargett occur when a trial court refuses to hear a pretrial habeas application challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which the accused is charged. See Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 868 n.13 (citing Von Kolb v. Koehler, 609 S.W.2d 654, 655-56 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1980, orig. proceeding)).
Although Teal’s remedies have been described as “limited,” he clearly does have a remedy. This remedy, as described in Hargett, is to present his habeas application to another district judge. See Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 868; Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d at 914-15; Davis, 990 S.W.2d at 457. Because Teal has an adequate legal remedy, we deny his petition for mandamus relief.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Davis,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Gray
Writ denied
Opinion delivered and filed July 26, 2000
Do not publish