Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On April 7, 2003, a jury was empanelled by visiting Judge David Cleveland in a Tarrant County trial court. On April 10, the jury convicted Joseph Mangone of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child. The jury acquitted Mangone on some other charges. Shortly before his sentencing on April 11, Mangone learned that Cleveland’s assignment order had been changed from April 7 to April 11, and that visiting Judge C. C. “Kit” Cooke had been assigned to the court for the same time period. Mangone filed a motion for mistrial for lack of jurisdiction. He also filed a writ of prohibition asking Judge George Gallagher, the sitting judge of the district, to order Cleveland to “cease and desist” acting in Mangone’s case. The administrative assistant to the presiding judge for the region testified at a hearing on Mangone’s motions that Cooke had originally been assigned to the court for those dates, but that he subsequently asked to be relieved of the assignment because of medical problems. The assistant then made arrangements to have Cleveland step in. Though the date Cleveland was to sit was first written down as beginning on April 7 (without an end date), it was later changed to run through April 11. Cleveland proceeded with the trial under a “verbal order” until the written order with the changed dates was signed by the presiding judge. Gallagher denied the motion for mistrial, and presided over the remainder of Mangone’s trial, without objection from Mangone. Mangone was sentenced, and he now appeals, contesting Cleveland’s authority. HOLDING:Affirmed. Because the trial began during Cleveland’s assigned time period, Cleveland was authorized by the written order to complete the trial of the case. The fact that the administrative assistant and the presiding judge of the region changed the ending date of the written order after Cleveland began the trial did not render the order null and void or deprive Cleveland of the authority to complete the trial commenced on the beginning date of his assignment, which did not change. The court adds that Texas law allows for two or more judges to exercise authority over a single case. Gallagher’s decision to preside over the punishment phase after Mangone challenged Cleveland’s authority is irrelevant as to Cleveland’s lawful authority to preside over the case earlier. OPINION:Cayce, C.J.; Cayce, C.J.; Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.