Opinion
No. 06-17-00156-CR
08-11-2017
IN RE CURLEY JEFFERSON
Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Curley Jefferson, who is represented by appointed counsel in the underlying appeal from his conviction of possession of a controlled substance, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, complaining that the district clerk has not provided him with a copy of the record so that he can represent himself on appeal. We deny Jefferson's petition because (1) an attorney has been appointed to represent him on direct appeal and (2) we do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless such writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004).
Jefferson does not have a right to hybrid representation. See Marshall v. State, 210 S.W.3d 618, 620 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (court refused to address appellant's pro se brief because appellant had no right to hybrid representation); Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ("Appellants are not allowed to have 'hybrid representation' on appeal, in which an appellant and an attorney can present independent points to an appellate court.").
Because an attorney has been appointed to represent Jefferson on appeal, we treat Jefferson's pro se mandamus petition as presenting nothing for this Court's review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). We, therefore, deny Jefferson's petition for a writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
Jefferson also indicates that he wishes to represent himself in his direct appeal based on a perceived conflict of interest of his appointed counsel. This complaint is the subject of a motion filed by Jefferson in his direct appeal, our cause number 06-17-00126-CR, and will be addressed in that matter.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice Date Submitted: August 10, 2017
Date Decided: August 11, 2017 Do Not Publish