Opinion
01-22-00107-CR 01-22-00108-CR
03-01-2022
IN RE JOSEPH T. ROBERTS, Relator
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Injunction
Panel consists of Justices Landau, Hightower, and Rivas-Molloy.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Relator, Joseph T. Roberts, has filed a petition for writ of injunction, claiming that he has not been "allowed" a competency hearing but that the trial court has issued an order, allegedly transferring him to the Rusk State Hospital for evaluation and treatment. Thus, it appears that relator is asking this Court to enjoin the trial court from transferring him to Rusk State Hospital without first having a competency hearing.
The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Joseph T. Roberts, cause numbers21DCR0095 & 21DCR0097, pending in the 253rd District Court of Chambers County, Texas, the Honorable Chap B. Cain presiding.
We first note that relator states he is represented in the trial court by appointed counsel. A pro se relator in a criminal case who is represented by appointed counsel is not entitled to hybrid representation, and thus, his pro se petition presents nothing for review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re Guillory, No. 01-20-00510-CR & No. 01-20-00511-CR, 2020 WL 4289973, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 28, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Moreover, relator has presented no record supporting his contentions. A relator filing an original proceeding must include every document material to his claim that was filed in the underlying proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1). Absent a sufficient record, relator has not established his entitlement to relief.
Finally, a writ of injunction issues only "to enforce or protect the appellate court's jurisdiction." In re Oko, No. 14-15-00780-CV, 2015 WL 5825123, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 2, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Miles, No. 01-19-00053-CR, 2019 WL 1064577, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 7, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221(a).
Issuance of a writ of injunction is limited to cases in which we have actual jurisdiction over a pending proceeding and the failure to grant relief would result in the appeal becoming moot and the subject matter destroyed. See In re Johnson, No. 01-06-00805-CR & No. 01-07-00817-CV, 2007 WL 2963685, at *1 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 11, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Becker v. Becker, 639 S.W.2d 23, 24 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ). Thus, relator is not entitled to injunctive relief because he has not shown that an appeal is pending. See Johnson, 2007 WL 2963685, at *1. And, even if we could construe this to be a petition for writ of mandamus, relator is not entitled to relief as a pro se relator because he is represented by appointed counsel, and he has not presented a record sufficient to support relief.
Accordingly, we deny the petition.