NO. 07-07 -050 6-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JAN UA RY

14, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ In re J OSEP H ME TOY ER , Rel ator

_________

_________

_________

______ Memorandum Opinion on Original Proc eedi ng

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL AND H ANCOCK, JJ. Pendi ng before the c our t i s a doc ument fil ed by Jo seph Me toy er

enti tl ed “ Il leg al Det enti on, V iol ati on of D ue Proces s Mo ti on, Seek ing Rel ief of C onfinement. ” Therei n, he cont end s thatthe trial court de nied him “‘Hy brid’” rep resen tatio n and failed to set aside his ind ictment si nce 180 day s hav e elaps ed sinc e the date of his indi ctment

. So too does he all eg e tha t 1)the documentbefore us w as filed pursuant to Rul e 10.1 of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Proced ure, 2)the tr ial co urt refused to r ule on a ny “ pro- se moti ons” and deni ed his moti on for

hy br id represent ati on, and 3) becaus e the tri al cour t has not ru led on his moti on to set asi de the ind ictment, he pur por ts to be il leg all y

co nfined. Al so attac hed to hi s d ocumenti s a pre- pr int ed appl ic ati on for a w ri t of habeas co rpus w herein he cont ends that on J une 16, 2007, he fil ed a moti on w it h the tr ial co urt und er “ Ar t. 32A.02 "A rti c l e 3 2 A .0 2 w a s re p e a l e d i n J u n e o f 2 0 0 5

. 1 2 of the T exas Code of

Cri min al Proced ure requestin g tha t the indictm entbe set a side since he was purporte dly den ied a spe edy trial. W e den y the requests for the followi ng reasons. 1 Fi rs t, to t he extent that Me toy er as ks u s to gra n t the moti on to se t as ide the ind ictment filed w it h the tr ial co urt, w e cannot do that. Our auth or ity

does not per mit us to adj udi cat e a matter

pendi ng in a tr ial co urt w it hout the t ri al cour t first act ing upon it

. See O’ Don niley v. Golden , 86 0 S. W .2 d 2 6 7 , 26 9 (T e x. Ap p .– T yler 1 9 9 3 , ori g . p ro c e e d in g) (w hen a trial court has yet to act, au tho rity entitle s us only to orde r th e trial co urt to act ; it does not a ll ow

us to tel l the t ri al cour

t w hat d eci si on to make)

. Seco nd, t o the extent that Me toy er is als o ask ing for mandamus reli ef, the r ule s o f p ro c e d u re o b li g a t e o n e se e k in g s u c h re li e f t o a c c o m p a n y h is p e t it io n wit h a n a p p e n d ix. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52 .3(j). The latter mu st include , am ong oth er things, a certif ied or sw orn copy of the d ocumentsh ow ing the matter co mplai ned of. In t h is case, t he doc ument show ing the matter

co mplai ned of woul d be the mot ion to setas ide the ind ictment. Y et, itw as not a ppended to hi s d ocument

. W e al so note other

i nst ances of his fail ure to compl y w it h the sa me r ule. F or examp le, his app lication lacks 1) a se ction ide ntif y ing the partie s and coun sel, 2) a tab le of conten ts, 3) an i ndex of a u th o ri ti es, 4) a s tatementof the c ase, and 5) a s tatementof the issues prese nte d. T hose are required to be include d in a pe tition seekin g extraordinary
re li ef. T EX . R. A PP . P

. 5 2 .3

. An d , th a t Met o yer ma y be ac ti n g pro sedoe s not relieve him
o f comply ing w it h tho se re q uirements

. Holt v. F.F. Ente rs. , 990 S.W .2d 756 , 759 (T e x. App .–A ma rill o 19 98, pet. den ied).F ilin g s o m e th in g w ith t h e d is tr ic t c le r k d o e s n o t m e a n t h e t r ia l c o u r t k n o w s o fit

. N o ris th a t c le r k ’s 2 k n o w l e d g e i m p u te d to th e tri a l c o u rt. I n r e Chavez , 62 S. W

. 3d 2 25, 228 ( T ex. App. –Am ar i l l o 20 01 , or i g. p ro c e e d i n g ). T h u s , M e to y e r m u s t p ro v e th a t t h e tri a l c o u rt re c e i v e d n o ti c e o f th e p l e a d i n g . I d. M er el yal l egi ng th a t s o m e th i n g w a s fi l e d w i th o r m a i l e d to th e d i s tri c t c l e rk d o e s n o t s a ti s fy t h a t re q u i re m e n t. I d. 3 Third, no thi ng of re cord i ndi cat es that the mot io n t o s et as ide the ind ictment purp orted ly

f iled belo w

was b rought to the a tten tion of the district cou rt. Simply put, be fore mandamus re li ef mayi ss ue, t he pet it ion er mustes tabl is h tha t th e d ist ric t cour t 1)had a leg al duty

to per form a non- dis creti onar y act, 2) w as ask ed to perform the act, and 3) fail ed
or refused to do i t. O’Conn or v. Fir st Court of Appea ls , 837 S.W .2d 9 4, 97 ( Tex . 199 2) ; In
reChavez , 62 S.W .3d 225 , 228 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 2001 , orig. proce edin g) . Giv en th is, iti s e ncumbentupon Me toy er to il lus trate t hat the dis tr ict cour t re cei v ed and w as aw are of his peti ti on. Thi s i s s o bec ause a c our t c annot be faulted for doi ng noth ing w hen i t i s o r 2
w as unaw are of the need to act

. Here, the re cord si mply ind ic ates that Me toy er ’s moti on w as f iled w ith the distri c t clerk. W het her the trial court was ever made aw are of it is unkno w n. Lack ing thati nformati on, we c annot si mply assume that t he di str ict c our t k new of its dutyto actand neg lected to perform it. Thus, Me toy er has not fulfill ed hi s b urden t o il lus trate t hat t he tr ial co urt refused to act. Acc ordin g ly , M etoy er ’s “Il leg al De tenti on, V iol ati on of D ue Proces s M oti on, S eeki ng Rel ief of Co nfinement” moti on/doc ument i s d eni ed.

Br ian Qui nn C hie f Just ic e Do not p ubl is h.