Opinion
NO. WR-16,351-11
12-10-2014
IN RE ALONZO DIEGO FULLER, Relator
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS CAUSE NO. 12-265 IN THE 35 DISTRICT COURT BROWN COUNTY
, filed a concurring statement.
CONCURRING STATEMENT
I write to concur in the Court's decision to deny relator's petition for a writ of mandamus. Relator first brought a mandamus action against the Honorable Stephen Ellis, Judge of the 35 District Court of Brown County, Texas, alleging that Judge Ellis did not appoint an attorney after relator informed the trial court that he wished to submit a motion under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In re Fuller, No. 11-14-00218-CR, 2014 WL 4348461, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Aug. 29, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 64.01(c). The court of appeals denied relator's petition for a writ of mandamus because he failed to file any supporting documentation, such as an appendix or a record, as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Fuller, 2014 WL 4348461, at *1; TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7.
Relator indicates in his petition to this Court that he is aware that the court of appeals denied his petition for failure to provide documentation to support his claims. He promises to this Court that he will provide us with a "mandamus record" to support his petition, but he has failed to do so. Furthermore, even if relator were to provide the promised record, that documentation would more properly be considered by the lower court in a new mandamus proceeding, and not for the first time by this Court. See Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ("[W]hen a court of appeals and this [C]ourt have concurrent, original jurisdiction of a petition for a writ of mandamus against the judge of a district . . . court, the petition should be presented first to the court of appeals unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.").
Relator has not provided any documentation to this Court to support his petition for a writ of mandamus. Furthermore, applicant has failed to provide a compelling reason why this Court, rather than the court of appeals, should be the first court to consider his writ of mandamus, even assuming he can provide appropriate documentation for his petition. I, therefore, respectfully concur in this Court's denial of relator's petition. I also note that this denial does not prevent relator from filing a new petition for a writ of mandamus with the court of appeals once he has obtained the appropriate documentation. Filed: December 10, 2014 Do Not Publish