Hollis, Anthony J. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 230th District Court of Harris County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 14-04-00997-CR

Case Date: 11/24/2004

Plaintiff: Hollis, Anthony J.

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 230th District Court of Harris County

Preview:In re Booker T. Dickerson--Appeal from 179th District Court of Harris County
/**/ Opinion issued March 25, 2004

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________

NO. 01-04-00225-CR ____________

IN RE BOOKER T. DICKERSON, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Booker T. Dickerson requests that this Court compel respondent, Hon. Michael Wilkinson, to rule on various pro se motions that relator filed in cause number 975135, currently pending in the 179th District Court. Relator concedes that he is represented by court-appointed counsel in the district court. However, relator is dissatisfied with his counsel s performance because counsel has not presented relator s pro se motions to the trial court for a ruling. Relator does not have the right to hybrid representation, that is, to both represent himself and be represented by counsel. Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Moreover, a trial court has no duty to search for counsel agreeable to a defendant. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Relator s petition has not provided us with a record showing that the trial court has any legal duty that it has failed to perform. In the absence of a legal duty of respondent to perform a nondiscretionary act, relator is not entitled to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/80301.html[8/20/2013 8:20:16 PM]

In addition, relator s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, 52.3. The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore denied. It is so ORDERED. PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Bland. Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/80301.html[8/20/2013 8:20:16 PM]

Download 80301.pdf