Opinion
08-24-00343-CR
10-07-2024
IN RE DEVORIS NEWSON, Relator.
AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS
Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On October 4, 2024, the Clerk of this Court filed a document from relator, Devoris Newson. We have determined the document to be a petition for writ of mandamus directed against the clerk of the 384th District Court. The petition was not served as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex.R.App.P. 9.5. However, we use Rule 2 to dispense with the service requirements and proceed to the issuance of this order. See Tex.R.App.P. 2.
We attach a copy of the pleading to this Order for the benefit of the Judge and clerk below, and the real party in interest, the State of Texas.
In the petition, Newson asserts several complaints. As we understand them, he first complains that he was not present at his arraignment for Cause Nos. 20240D01344 and 20240D01345, and he has not attended any pretrial hearings in violation of Article 28.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. He next complains that the trial court has appointed counsel without first finding him indigent, which has deprived him of the ability to file motions and act pro se because courts are not obligated to entertain pro se motions when a defendant is represented by counsel. Newson's overarching complaint is that he has been deprived of due process and access to courts because the trial court is proceeding on pretrial matters without him in attendance.
As with many pro se pleadings, this Court is often tasked with sifting through the claims "until satisfied of their merit or lack of merit-a process which may require some development of the case." Spellmon v. Sweeny, 819 S.W.2d 206, 209 (Tex. App.-Waco 1991, no writ). Here, we choose to ask for a response from the State, as the real party in interest, to better allow this Court to understand the circumstances germane to Newson's complaints. See In re Jones, No. 10-19-00202-CR, at *1, 2019 WL 3489087 (Tex. App.-Waco July 31, 2019, original proceeding) (mem. op. not designated for publication) (noting the court similarly called for a response to better understand the proceedings below).
Accordingly, the State is ORDERED to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus, within 20 days from the date of this order, explaining: (1) the nature of the proceedings below in Cause Nos. 20240D01344, 20240D01345; (2) the status of those cases; (3) whether counsel has been retained or appointed for Mr. Newson in those cases; (4) the resolution or status of any competency determination; and (5) whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide Newson's petition. No mandamus record has been filed with Mr. Newson's pleading. The State is encouraged to include as a part of its response any relevant copies of the record below that may assist the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.