Narrative Opinion Summary
Charles Boothe filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the district attorney, claiming she was neglecting her responsibilities by not pursuing justice and withholding exculpatory evidence. He also alleged that the trial court was failing to properly handle writs of habeas corpus. The State responded that Boothe had subsequently pleaded guilty, received a 90-day jail sentence, and was released after serving the time. The court dismissed Boothe's petition as moot due to these developments. The opinion was filed by Chief Justice Jones and Justices Waldrop and Henson on September 30, 2009.
Legal Issues Addressed
Judicial Handling of Writs of Habeas Corpussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Boothe alleged that the trial court was not properly handling writs of habeas corpus, but the court dismissed these claims as moot following the resolution of his criminal case.
Reasoning: He also alleged that the trial court was failing to properly handle writs of habeas corpus.
Mootness Doctrine in Writ of Mandamussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the mootness doctrine to dismiss Charles Boothe's petition for a writ of mandamus because the underlying issues were resolved when Boothe pleaded guilty, served his sentence, and was released.
Reasoning: The court dismissed Boothe's petition as moot due to these developments.
Prosecutorial Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Boothe claimed that the district attorney neglected her duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, but the court found this allegation moot after his guilty plea and sentence.
Reasoning: Charles Boothe filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the district attorney, claiming she was neglecting her responsibilities by not pursuing justice and withholding exculpatory evidence.