in Re: Craig Watkins, 05-14-01167-CV

Background

Relator Tyrone Allen requested a pretrial hearing to determine intellectual disability in his capital-murder case; Trial Judge Larry Mitchell granted that motion.
The State sought mandamus relief from the court of appeals to prevent the pretrial intellectual-disability determination.
The court of appeals conditionally granted the State’s writ directed at Judge Mitchell.
Judge Mitchell left the bench before proceedings concluded; a successor judge now presides over the case.
The dissent contends the appellate order and this Court’s review are moot because the writ was directed at the former judge and the successor must be given an opportunity to reconsider (abatement).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness / Abatement: Is mandamus against a former judge proper after the judge leaves office?	State: mandamus was warranted to block the pretrial hearing.	Dissent: Once the judge left, the controversy is moot; abate to successor judge to reconsider.	Dissent: Abatement required; proceeding rendered moot as to former judge.
Ripeness / Jurisdiction: Can a trial court decide intellectual-disability pretrial in a capital case?	Relator (Allen): sought early resolution before guilt phase.	State / Dissent: Intellectual-disability claim is unripe pretrial; jurisdiction is lacking until sentencing/post-conviction.	Dissent: Pretrial determination is unripe; trial court lacks jurisdiction for such a pretrial hearing.
Statutory Scheme: Do Texas capital-procedure statutes permit a pretrial bar to seeking death based on intellectual disability?	Relator: trial judge can entertain pretrial claim.	State / Dissent: Statutory scheme contemplates death-penalty procedures triggered by State’s decision; no statutory authority for pretrial gatekeeping.	Dissent: The statutes, read together, preclude imposing a pretrial barrier to the State’s pursuit of death.
Briseno jurisprudence: Does Briseno permit pretrial intellectual-disability findings?	Relator: Briseno standard can be applied pretrial.	State / Dissent: Briseno assumes defendant already convicted; factors require consideration of offense conduct, incompatible with presumption of innocence.	Dissent: Briseno’s framework presumes a conviction; it is inappropriate pretrial.

Key Cases Cited

In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2008) (abatement required to allow successor judge to reconsider prior judge’s order)
In re Schmitz, 285 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. 2009) (mandamus against former judge typically requires abatement)
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (case is moot if controversy ceases at any stage, including on appeal)
In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (dismissal where particular dispute became moot)
State v. Olsen, 360 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. 1962) (writ of mandamus will not lie against successor judge absent refusal by successor)
Pfeiffer v. State, 363 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (Court lacks authority to render advisory opinions)
Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (standard for determining intellectual disability in capital cases assumes conviction)
Ex parte Sosa, 364 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (application of Briseno framework)
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1895) (presumption of innocence until proven guilty)