In Re Thompson, 330 S.W.3d 411

Relator Thompson, Navarro County district attorney, sought mandamus to force Judge Baird to follow Rule 18a recusal/referral procedures in In re: Cameron Todd Willingham proceedings.
Relatives sought a Court of Inquiry under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 52.01(a) to investigate Willingham's conviction and obtain a declaration of wrongful conviction and related relief.
Judge Baird concluded Thompson lacked standing to file a recusal motion, since Thompson was not a party to the Court-of-Inquiry petition and did not rule on the motion.
Thompson petitioned this Court for mandamus and emergency stay; this Court temporarily stayed below proceedings.
We hold that mandamus relief is warranted to require Judge Baird to recuse or refer the motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district.
Dissent by Justice Puryear would deny mandamus and question our jurisdiction over a non-judicial magisterial action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus jurisdiction exists to compel recusal/referral	Thompson	Baird	Yes; Court has mandamus jurisdiction under §22.221(b)(1).
Whether Thompson has standing as a party under Rule 18a	Thompson is a State actor with a substantial interest	Thompson is not a party to the ex parte proceedings	Thompson has party status for Rule 18a purposes.
Whether mandamus relief is appropriate when there is no adequate remedy by appeal	No adequate remedy by appeal due to bias risk and novel issue	Adequate remedy by appeal exists after final judgment	Adequate remedy by appeal not available; mandamus warranted.
Whether Judge Baird abused his discretion by failing to recuse or refer	Rule 18a mandatory recusal/referral must be followed	Judge acted within discretion	Yes; Judge Baird abused discretion by not recusing or referring.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (adequate-remedy balancing for mandamus; public/private interests)
In re Norman, 191 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (mandatory duty to recuse or refer; mandamus relief appropriate)
Ex parte Sinegar, 324 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applies Rule 18a in habeas context)
McLeod v. Harris, 582 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. 1979) (mandamus to compel recusal/referral; compulsory action)
Eagle Printing Co. v. Delaney, 671 S.W.2d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (courts of inquiry safeguards and history)
In re Court of Inquiry, 148 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2004) (procedure and powers of court of inquiry; safeguards)
Marquez, 885 S.W.2d 457 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1994) (mandamus jurisdiction limits re magistrates in Court of Inquiry)
In re Hettler, 110 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003) (no jurisdiction to issue mandamus against non-presiding magistrate)
Ex parte Smith, 383 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) (constitutional safeguards in court-of-inquiry context)