Opinion
01-22-00786-CR 01-22-00787-CR
11-01-2022
IN RE JOSEPH THOMAS ROBERTS, Relator
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Countiss, and Farris.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Relator, Joseph Thomas Roberts, appearing pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that his trial court cases have been dismissed and this Court should issue a writ of mandamus to "enforce" the trial court's dismissal orders and "cause [Roberts] release from illegal detention."
The underlying cases are The State of Texas v. Joseph Thomas Roberts, Cause Nos. 20-DCR-0505 and 20-DCR-0506, in the 344th District Court of Chambers County, Texas, the Honorable Randy McDonald presiding.
We deny Roberts' petition for writ of mandamus.
As noted above, Roberts asserts that his trial court cases, trial court cause numbers 20-DCR-0505 and 20-DCR-0506, were dismissed by the trial court and he is being illegally detained by the Chambers County Sheriff's Office. Accordingly, Roberts requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus to "order collateral estoppel or find double jeopardy . . . order [the Chambers County Sheriff's Office] to acknowledge the March 22[,] 2021 order to dismiss causing release from [Chambers County Sheriff's Office] custody . . . order records, discovery or a hearing with the Court of Appeals on this matter, . . . find ineffective assistance of counsel by prior attorney Dan P. Bradley and order [the appointment of an appellate] attorney . . . order [Roberts] released from illegal captivity or order to show cause why petition should not be released . . . or for any and all other relief [Roberts] is justly entitled."
However, Roberts' mandamus petition does not include an appendix or mandamus record providing supporting documentation or evidence of his assertions. Thus, Roberts' petition fails to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k) (mandamus petition "must" contain an appendix with "certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of"), 52.7 (mandamus petition "must" file a record containing "certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding"); see also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (relator must provide mandamus record sufficient to establish right to mandamus relief). Absent a mandamus record sufficient to establish a right to the relief requested, Roberts' petition must be denied.
Accordingly, we deny Roberts' petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Roberts previously filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court on October 15, 2021. In his October 15, 2021 petition, Roberts acknowledged that he was represented by court-appointed counsel in the trial court. Because criminal defendants are not entitled to hybrid representation, his October 15, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See In re Roberts, Nos. 01-21-00561-CR, 01-21-00562-CR, 2021 WL 5056621, at *1-2 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 2, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In his current mandamus petition, Roberts asserts that he is no longer represented by counsel in the trial court. However, because Roberts did not provide a mandamus record in connection with filing his petition for writ of mandamus, he has not provided this Court with any evidence to support his assertion.