英語(yǔ)翻譯
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