### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 24
- 00157
- CR IN RE RONNEY JOE STANDIFER
Original Proceeding
From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013
- 122
- C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ronney Joe Standifer, the Relator in this petition for writ of mandamus, seeks to compel the trial court to conduct an in

- person hear ing on an "omnibus motion" that the trial court has denied. According to the allegations in Standifer's petition for writ of mandamus, he seeks to obtain documents, consult with various medical and other experts, and conduct other discovery via the appoin tment of an attorney and investigators to assist him in preparing and filing an article 11.07 application for a writ of habeas corpus. See generally T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC . art. 11.07. 1 The trial court has already

1 So that the Court could make head s or tails of the P etition , it was necessary for the Court to review documents in the previous direct appeal to which Standifer made reference in his Petitio n. See Standifer v.In re Standifer Page 2 denied Standifer’s omnibus motion. Standifer attempted to appeal that denial. This
C ourt dismissed the appeal because this Court does not have appellate jurisdiction to
review that denial. See Standifer v. State , No. 10

- 24

- 00030

- CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1016 (Tex. App.

— W aco Feb. 8, 2024, no pet.) (not designated for publication)

. In the petition for writ of mandamus that Standifer has now filed , 2 which is very difficult to read and understand, it appears Standifer seeks to compel the trial court to hold a hearing on the merits of his omnibus motion , on the record and in person, so that various evidence can be presented. The ruling on the motion to compel a hearing on the record and in person is unnecessary because the motion on which Standifer seeks the hearing has alre ady been denied. Standifer cites many platitudes and cases referencing due process which apply to the process of conviction and the statutory appellate process, all of which occurred
when he was convicted in 2015. See Standifer v. State , No. 10

- 15

- 00038

- CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9579 (Tex. App.

— Waco Sep. 10, 2015, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). While he is troubled by what he views as the apparent lack of cooperation to assist him in obtaining information he believes is now necessary for hi m to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus, he has not presented anything to this Court upon which this Court can grant him any relief by way of an appeal or a writ of mandamus.

State , No. 10

- 24

- 00030

- CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1016 (Tex. App.

— Waco Feb. 8, 2024, no pet.) (not designat ed for publication).

2 Standifer also filed a motion for leave to file his mandamus petition. This motion is no longer required because of a change in the Rules of Appellate Procedure

. See T EX

. R. A PP
. P . 52, Notes and Comments ("The requirement of a motion for leave in origin al proceedings [in the court of appeals] is repealed.").In re Standifer Page 3 Accordingly, Standifer's petition for a writ of mandamus is denied , 3 and his
motion for leave to file his mandamus petition is dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Petition denied Motion dismissed as moot Opinion delivered and filed June 27 , 2024 Do not publish [ OT 06 ]

3 Standifer also appears to include a complaint that the district clerk will not tell him what is the cost for copies of various documents he has sought. This Court has no jurisdiction to issue a wr it of mandamus against a district clerk. In re Eller , 672 S.W.3d 194 , 194

- 195 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2023, orig. proceeding)

.