IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00215-CR
No. 10-22-00216-CR
IN RE WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB
Original Proceedings
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2012-675-C2 & 2012-678-C2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
These matters are the latest filings in relator William Charles Webb’s ongoing
quest to have certain items DNA tested. In fact, since 2018, Webb has filed numerous
Chapter 64 proceedings seeking to review orders denying appointment of counsel and
post-conviction DNA testing on various items. See generally In re Webb, No. 10-22-00040-
CR, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 1276 (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 23, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op., not designated for publication); In re Webb, No. 10-22-00028-CR, 2022 Tex. App.
LEXIS 1281 (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 23, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated
for publication); In re Webb, No. 10-20-00292-CR, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 8509 (Tex. App.—
Waco Oct. 20, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Webb v.
State, No. 10-18-00170-CR, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 8527 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 20, 2021,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Webb, No. 10-21-00069-CR, 2021
Tex. App. LEXIS 3934 (Tex. App.—Waco May 19, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not
designated for publication); Webb v. State, No. 13-18-00578-CR, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 5081
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 20, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication); In re Webb, No. 10-18-00113-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2952 (Tex. App.—
Waco Apr. 25, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re
Webb, No. 10-18-00036-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1066 (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 7, 2018,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
In the two most recent proceedings, relator, William Charles Webb, filed two pro
se petitions for writ of mandamus in this Court. In his pro se mandamus petitions, Webb
complains that the trial court has refused to rule on his pro se Chapter 64 motions for
DNA testing filed on March 31, 2022, and April 7, 2022. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 64.01.
On March 10, 2023, the trial court denied Webb’s pro se Chapter 64 motions for
DNA testing, stating that Webb had failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that there is a likelihood that the evidence Webb sought to have DNA tested
contains biological material suitable for DNA testing. Specifically, the trial court noted
In re Webb Page 2
that “the evidence requested to be tested by the Movant [Webb] has been destroyed in
the normal course of business of the Waco Fire Department after the mandate had issued
in this case.”
Because the trial court has now ruled on Webb’s pro se Chapter 64 motions for
DNA testing filed on March 31, 2022, and April 7, 2022, Webb’s complaints in these
mandamus petitions are now moot. See In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014) (dismissing a petition for writ of mandamus because the matter is moot given that
the information sought by relator was provided to him); see also State ex rel. Eidson v.
Edwards, 793 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (dismissing a petition for writ of
mandamus on original submission on the grounds that the relief sought was moot); State
ex rel. Holmes v. Denson, 671 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (dismissing a
mandamus petition on the ground that the relief sought had become moot and noting
that “there is nothing to mandamus, ergo mandamus does not lie”). Accordingly, we
dismiss Webb’s mandamus petitions filed on June 29, 2022, for lack of jurisdiction.
STEVE SMITH
Justice
In re Webb Page 3
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Smith,
and Justice Wright1
Petitions dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed March 22, 2023
Do not publish
[OT06]
1 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals,
sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003,
75.002, 75.003.
In re Webb Page 4