Opinion issued November 21, 2012.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00859-CV
———————————
IN RE ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Artis Charles Harrell, has filed, pro se, a petition for writ of
mandamus, challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to recuse the
Honorable William R. Burke, Presiding Judge of the 189th District Court of Harris
County, Texas.1
1
The underlying case is Harrell v. Brinson, No. 2006-02867, in the 189th District
Court of Harris County, Texas.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.2
Standard of Review
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which is available only when (1) a
trial court clearly abuses its discretion and (2) there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004)
(orig. proceeding); In re Unitec Elevator Servs. Co., 178 S.W.3d 53, 57 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its
discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a
clear and prejudicial error of law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.
1992).
Applicable Law
In his sole issue, relator complains that the trial court abused its discretion
by denying his recusal motion. However, “[a]n order denying a motion to recuse
may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.”
TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A). Accordingly, relator has an adequate remedy by
appeal for the denial of his motion to recuse. See In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969
S.W.2d 427, 429 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). Because “mandamus is expressly
reserved for situations where a relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal,” the
2
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (providing that, when denying relief requested in
petition for writ of mandamus, “court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so”).
2
petition for writ of mandamus must be denied. See In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360
(Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding).
Conclusion
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his
burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148
S.W.3d at 135–36.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.
3