Opinion
01-24-00365-CR
07-02-2024
IN RE JOHN DEREK DARNALL, Relator
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Panel consists of Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Relator John Derek Darnall, incarcerated and acting pro se, filed an Application for Writ of Mandamus, asking this Court to "[d]irect[] [the trial court] to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus . . ., hold [a] bail reduction hearing, and set bail in the appropriate amount or grant [him] a [p]ersonal [r]ecognizance [b]ond . . . ."
The underlying case is The State of Texas v. John Derek Darnall, Cause No. 1852484, in the 208th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Beverly D. Armstrong presiding.
Relator's mandamus petition contains contradictory statements. Relator states that the trial court "has refused, by operation of law, to consider [his] Writ of Habeas Corpus Application[,]" but also states that the trial court "held a bail reduction hearing[,] [and] . . . refused to reduce the amount of bail[,]" indicating that the trial court did consider his habeas application.
On June 24, 2024, Relator filed an addendum to his Application for Writ of Mandamus.
To the extent Relator seeks to challenge the trial court's denial of his habeas application requesting a reduction in bail, Relator cannot do so through a writ of mandamus. The proper procedural avenue to challenge a trial court's denial of a habeas application for reduction of bail is by filing a notice of appeal. See In re Rodriguez, No. 07-17-00079-CV, 2017 WL 1089591, at *2 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Mar. 20, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief because "[a]n order denying an application for pretrial habeas corpus relief by release on personal bond or bail reduction is reviewable by appeal").
Relator also failed to submit an appendix or sworn record with his mandamus petition, thereby failing to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k); 52.7(a)(1); see also In re Hughes, 607 S.W.3d 136, 138 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (dismissing mandamus without prejudice for failure to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure).
Last, Relator's pro se Application for Writ of Mandamus presents nothing for our Court to review because a criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Relator concedes that he "has court appointed counsel." As such, his mandamus petition must be denied. See In re Rodriguez, No. 08-03-00499-CR, 2004 WL 516698, at *1 (Tex. App.-El Paso Mar. 17, 2004, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) ("Because [relator] is represented by counsel in the trial court, he is not entitled to relief on his pro se petition for writ of mandamus.") (citing Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (orig. proceeding) (overruling pro se motion for leave to file mandamus petition because relator was represented by appointed trial counsel and not entitled to hybrid representation)).
We deny the petition. Tex.R.App.P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are denied as moot.