英语翻译See Woodard,991 S.W.2d at 796-97.  We,therefore,reaffirm the general rule applied in Woodard that courts “should not grant mandamus relief to the complaining party on a recusal motion under [Rule 18a] because the party has an adeq

英语翻译See Woodard,991 S.W.2d at 796-97.  We,therefore,reaffirm the general rule applied in Woodard that courts “should not grant mandamus relief to the complaining party on a recusal motion under [Rule 18a] because the party has an adeq
英语翻译
See Woodard,991 S.W.2d at 796-97.  We,therefore,reaffirm the general rule applied in Woodard that courts “should not grant mandamus relief to the complaining party on a recusal motion under [Rule 18a] because the party has an adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal from the final judgment.”   See McClenan,661 S.W.2d at 111.  Moreover,McClenan (which we have overruled on other grounds earlier in this opinion) demonstrates that a trial judge's failure to comply with Rule 18a can be harmless where the record demonstrates that the trial judge was not biased.  See Woodard,991 S.W.2d at 797 (trial judge allegedly failed to comply with Rule 18a by not referring the defendant's fourth recusal motion for another judge to decide);  McClenan,661 S.W.2d at 110-11 (trial judge erred by failing to refer defendant's recusal motion for another judge to decide).  Though both of these cases involved a trial judge's alleged failure to comply with Rule 18a,neither of them involved a situation where the trial judge's bias was established as a matter of law. Deciding that respondent's bias in the De Leon case has been established as a matter of law distinguishes this case from cases such as Woodard and McClenan. 4

英语翻译See Woodard,991 S.W.2d at 796-97.  We,therefore,reaffirm the general rule applied in Woodard that courts “should not grant mandamus relief to the complaining party on a recusal motion under [Rule 18a] because the party has an adeq
参见Woodard,991 S.W.2d at 796-97.我们因此再度确认Woodard 案中所使用的一般规则为“不应[在规则第18条a款项下]就回避动议给予申诉方救济命令书,因为该方在法律上通过对最终判决的上诉有合适的救济渠道".参见McClenan,661 S.W.2d at 111.此外,McClenan案中（我们在早先的意见中基于其他理由驳回了判决）显示了审判法官未能遵守规则第18条a款是无害的,记录显示审判法官并无偏见.参见Woodard,991 S.W.2d at 797（审判法官据称由于未将被告的第四次回避动议提交给另一位法官决定,因而违反了规则第18条a款）,参见 McClenan,661 S.W.2d at 110-11（审判法官未能将被告的回避动议提交给另一位法官来决定是错误的）.通过上述两个涉及审判法官据称未能遵守规则18条a款的案例,它们都没有涉及一种情况,那就是审判法官的偏见被确立为一项法律问题.De Leon
案中,决定被申请人的偏见被确立为一项法律问题,因而此案同其他案件如Woodard案和McClenan不同.
供参考,