Opinion
10-22-00215-CR 10-22-00216-CR
03-22-2023
IN RE WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB
Do not publish
Original Proceedings
From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2012-675-C2 & 2012-678-C2
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Smith, and Justice Wright
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.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
STEVE SMITH, JUSTICE
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 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.
Petitions dismissed