Opinion
WR-95,072-01
10-25-2023
IN RE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. JAMES STAINTON, Relator
Do Not Publish
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN CAUSE NOS. CR24558 & CR24559 IN THE 271ST CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT WISE COUNTY
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
We have before us a Motion for Leave to File a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the accompanying Petition.
Real-Party-in-Interest Tanner Lynn Horner is charged with capital murder and aggravated kidnapping. Relator, the district attorney for the 271st Judicial District, has announced his intent to seek the death penalty in the capital murder case. In this mandamus action, Relator asks us to order Respondent, Judge Brock Smith of the 271st District Court, to rescind his July 13, 2023 ruling removing Real-Party-in-Interest's previously appointed trial lawyers and replacing them with lawyers from the Regional Public Defender's Office (RPDO).
On December 5, 2022, Respondent appointed attorney William Ray to represent Real-Party-in-Interest in the capital murder and aggravated kidnapping cases; just over a week later, Respondent appointed attorney Steven Gordon to serve as second chair. Ray and Gordon worked on Real-Party-in-Interest's cases from December 2022 through July 2023. Then, at a status hearing on July 13, 2023, Respondent removed Ray and Gordon as Real-Party-in-Interest's trial lawyers and replaced them with lawyers from the RPDO.
In response to Respondent's July 13, 2023 ruling, Relator brought the instant mandamus action. Relator argued that Respondent's July 13, 2023 ruling "jeopardiz[ed]" both Real-Party-in-Interest's and Relator's ability to have a fair trial. Relator cited caselaw from this Court stating that, once an attorney-client relationship has been established, "[t]here must be some principled reason, apparent from the record, to justify a trial judge's sua sponte replacement of appointed counsel." See Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945, 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Relator worried that Respondent had not articulated a "principled reason" for his July 13, 2023 ruling and had thereby "provide[d] grounds for reversible error." To avoid this, Relator urged this Court to order Respondent to rescind his July 13, 2023 ruling, which would effectively reinstate Ray and Gordon as Real-Party-in-Interest's trial lawyers.
Upon receipt of Relator's Motion and Petition, we preliminarily concluded that it would be prudent to stay the trial court proceedings. We therefore stayed those proceedings "pending further order of this Court." In re State ex rel. Stainton, No. WR-95,072-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 30, 2023) (not designated for publication). We also determined that we needed more information before we ruled on the merits of Relator's mandamus action. So, in a series of orders, we directed Respondent to clarify the record. Respondent dutifully complied.
Without expressing an opinion on whether Relator's pleadings meet the demanding standard for mandamus relief, subsequent developments have led us to conclude that it is unnecessary for this Court to intervene on mandamus. Specifically, the record now shows that Real-Party-in-Interest (1) "wants the Regional Public Defender Office . . . to represent him in Cause Number CR-24559 where he is now charged with Capital Murder" and (2) does not want Ray or Gordon to represent him "in Cause Number CR-24558 where he is now charged with Aggravated Kidnapping." Were we to grant mandamus relief in this case (and effectively order Respondent to reinstate Ray and Gordon over Horner's wishes), we would risk frustrating the very Sixth Amendment right that this action was originally brought to safeguard. In any event, it appears that the State's concern over reversible error has been ameliorated.
Leave to file is therefore denied. Further, this Court's stay of the trial court proceedings in both cases, entered August 30, 2023, is hereby lifted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.