Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-26-00220-CR
In re William Thompson
Original Proceeding
JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
William Thompson, elected District Attorney of Navarro County and
Relator in this proceeding, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking this
Court to compel the Honorable Judge James Lagomarsino, Respondent, to
withdraw his order disqualifying Relator from representing the State of Texas
in a pending criminal proceeding, The State of Texas vs. Edward R. Monk, trial
court cause number D43,406-CR. We deny Relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus and motion for temporary relief.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
A Navarro County grand jury indicted Edward Monk for multiple felony
offenses, including theft greater than $300,000 from a non-profit corporation
for allegedly misappropriating funds from the church where he was the priest. The church apparently initiated internal proceedings to determine whether
Monk should be removed, which involved a “church trial.” 1 Relator appeared
at the “church trial” and, having been sworn as a witness, described the
investigative process underlying the criminal charges. He also explained that
before seeking indictment, he subpoenaed many bank records. Relator
detailed his review of some of those records and provided his opinions as to
where Monk was moving the church’s money.
Monk subsequently filed a motion to disqualify Relator. Respondent
apparently held a hearing on the motion and granted Monk’s request for
disqualification. Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus along with a
motion for a temporary stay, to which Monk filed a response.
ANALYSIS
To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the relator must demonstrate that
(1) he has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) he has a clear and indisputable
right to the relief sought. State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2002). Here, all parties agree that Relator has no adequate remedy at
law, as the State cannot appeal a disqualification order. See TEX. CODE CRIM
PROC. ANN. art. 44.01.
1 Both parties utilize this terminology in referring to the relevant proceeding.
In re William Thompson Page 2
As to the second prong, trial courts have limited authority to disqualify
district attorneys. See id. art. 2A.105.2 Outside of the statutory
disqualification parameters, trial courts may also disqualify a prosecutor when
a conflict rises to the level of a due process violation. State ex. rel. Hill v. Pirtle,
887 S.W.2d 921, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). A due process violation occurs
only when the defendant can establish “actual prejudice,” not just the threat of
possible prejudice to his rights. Landers v. State, 256 S.W.3d 295, 304-05 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). Monk’s due-process complaint stemmed from his Sixth
Amendment right to compulsory process and confrontation of witnesses in
conjunction with Rule 3.08 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional
Conduct. See U.S. CONST. AMENDS. VI, XIV; TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF’L
CONDUCT 3.08(a). Rule 3.08 prohibits a lawyer from acting as an advocate if
they are a “witness necessary to establish an essential fact[.]” TEX.
DISCIPLINARY R. PROF’L CONDUCT 3.08(a); In re Tex. Tech. Servs., Inc., 476
S.W.3d 747, 750 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding).
2 Though Monk mentions this statute in his motion to disqualify, he does not identify any of the
statutory disqualifications that would apply in this case. He also does not contend in his response to the mandamus petition that this statute applies.
In re William Thompson Page 3
Relator contends that he satisfies the second prong of the mandamus test
because Monk failed to demonstrate “actual prejudice” and did not
demonstrate any “essential fact” that only Relator could testify to at trial.
However, a relator has the burden of providing this Court with a
sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.7. He is required to file with his petition a certified or sworn copy of every
document that is material to the claim for relief, including any order
complained of. See id. R. 52.3(l)(1)(B) (relating to necessary documents to be
included in the appendix), R. 52.7(a)(1) (relating to necessary documents to be
included in the record). A relator is also required to provide a properly
authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying
proceeding, including any exhibits offered into evidence, or a statement that
no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained of. Id. R.
52.7(a)(2). Here, Relator provided an uncertified and unsworn letter ruling
that expressly states it “shall not be considered as an order[.]” Though he
references statements allegedly made by Respondent at the disqualification
hearing, Relator did not provide a transcript of the hearing. Furthermore, the
letter ruling references “evidence admitted” that Respondent expressly
considered in making his decision, which Relator did not provide to this Court.
In re William Thompson Page 4 We cannot determine from the record provided that Relator has a clear and
indisputable right to the relief sought.
Because Relator failed to provide this Court with a record sufficient to
establish his entitlement to relief, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus.
Relator’s motion for temporary relief is also denied.
STEVE SMITH
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 25, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Petition denied
Motion denied
Do not publish
OT06
In re William Thompson Page 5