NO. 12-13-00377-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

DANNY DALE WEISINGER, SR., 

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

In this original proceeding, Relator, Danny Dale Weisinger Sr., complains of an order 

signed by a former judge on May 14, 2004, granting a motion to withdraw filed by Relator’s 

appellate counsel. He seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Honorable Pam Foster Fletcher, 

Judge of the 349th Judicial District Court, to vacate the order and reinstate counsel. We deny the 

petition.

PREREQUISITES TO MANDAMUS

Generally, to be entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator must establish 

that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel 

is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. 

Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2007) (orig. proceeding). 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW

Relator claims his appellate counsel falsely alleged in his motion to withdraw that there 

were no current settings or deadlines in the case. He contends that this allegation was false 

because the former judge had orally appointed the withdrawing attorney to assist Relator in 

preparing a motion for forensic DNA testing. He asserts that counsel was bound by this oral 
2

pronouncement to represent him and therefore could not truthfully say there were no current 

settings or deadlines in the case. Thus, Relator maintains that the May 14, 2004 order is void 

and contends that he is entitled to mandamus relief regardless of whether he has an adequate 

remedy at law.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5, which Relator cites in his mandamus petition, 

pertains to an attorney seeking to withdraw from representing a party in an appellate court. That 

being so, it logically follows that the “list of current deadlines and settings in the case” to be 

included in the motion to withdraw pertains to deadlines and settings in the appellate court. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(a)(1). Relator does not contend that there were deadlines or settings in this 

court that counsel did not list in his motion. Moreover, even if counsel had misrepresented 

whether there were deadlines or settings in the appellate court, Relator has not shown that any 

such misrepresentation would have rendered the withdrawal order void.

 

FAILURE TO ADMONISH

Relator also contends that he was forced to represent himself in his direct appeal without 

being properly admonished by the former judge about the dangers of self-representation. Based 

upon his conclusion that the order allowing counsel to withdraw is void, he requests that the writ 

of mandamus direct the trial court to “reinstate counsel to file the necessary documents to 

reinstate the direct appeal.” However, Relator has not shown that the order allowing counsel to 

withdraw is void.

Additionally, this court affirmed Relator’s conviction on January 12, 2005, and the court 

of criminal appeals refused Relator’s petition for discretionary review. See Weisinger v. State, 

No. 12-03-00274-CR, 2004 WL 3103643, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Jan. 12, 2005, pet. ref’d) 

(mem. op., not designated for publication). Therefore, Relator’s conviction has been final for 

almost ten years. We are unaware of any rule of appellate procedure or other law that authorizes 

this court to reinstate a direct appeal of a felony conviction that has been final for this length of 

time. Consequently, even if the withdrawal order were void, Relator would not be entitled to 

reinstatement of the appeal.
3

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that Relator has not shown he is entitled to 

mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. All pending 

motions are dismissed as moot.

Opinion delivered October 22, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 22, 2014

NO. 12-13-00377-CR

DANNY DALE WEISINGER, SR.,

Relator

V.

HON. PAM FLETCHER,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed 

by DANNY DALE WEISINGER, SR., who is the defendant in Cause No. 03CR-05, pending 

on the docket of the 349th Judicial District Court of Houston County, Texas. Said petition for 

writ of mandamus having been filed herein on December 19, 2013, and the same having been 

duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that a writ of mandamus 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.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.