Opinion
12-23-00264-CR
11-21-2023
IN RE: WILLIAM WALKER, RELATOR WILLIAM WALKER, Relator v. HON. JUDGE ROBERT K. INSELMANN JR., Respondent
DO NOT PUBLISH
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
On September 28, 2023, William Walker filed a pro se notice of appeal regarding his application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a bond reduction. We dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because there was no final judgment or appealable order. See Ex parte Walker, No. 12-23-00248-CR, 2023 WL 6885020 (Tex. App.-Tyler Oct. 18, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). On October 18, Relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, in which he requests a writ instructing Respondent to sign a final judgment or appealable order.
Respondent is the Honorable Robert K. Inselmann, Judge of the 217th District Court in Angelina County, Texas. The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.
Relator is represented by counsel. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Relator must look to appointed counsel for representation in this original proceeding. See In re Bice, No. 12-12-00038-CR, 2012 WL 2033131, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler June 6, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means Relator's pro se petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for this Court to review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see also In re Clark, Nos. 12-20-00208&209-CR, 2020 WL 5552617 (Tex. App.-Tyler Sept. 16, 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (denying mandamus petition because relator was represented by counsel and not entitled to hybrid representation); In re Searcy, No. 14-20-00481-CR, 2020 WL 4012007, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] July 16, 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam); Bice, 2012 WL 2033131, at *1. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Additionally, Relator's petition fails to comply with appellate Rules 52.1, 52.2, 52.3(a)-(f), (h), and (k), and 52.7. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1 (commencement of original proceeding); Tex.R.App.P. 52.2 (designation of parties); Tex.R.App.P. 52.3 (form and contents of petition); Tex.R.App.P. 52.7 (record). The Clerk of this Court notified Relator of the defects and gave a deadline by which to correct them. Although the notice was sent to the address provided by Relator, it was returned with no forwarding address. Absent a record provided in accordance with Rule 52.7, we could not determine whether Relator is entitled to relief. See In re McCreary, No. 12-15-00067-CR, 2015 WL 1395783 (Tex. App.-Tyler Mar. 25, 2015, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
JUDGMENT
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by William Walker; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00264-CR and the defendant in trial court cause number 2022-0666, pending on the docket of the 217th Judicial District Court of Angelina County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on October 18, 2023, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby denied.