## NOS. 12-08-00334-CR 12-08-00342-CR 12-08-00361-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

IN RE: § MICHA EL KENNEDY

, § ORIGINAL PROCEE DING RELATOR § MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM Mic ha e l K e nn e dy

ha s f ile d thre e pe tit ion s f

or wr it o f m and amus , o ne of whi ch in clu de s a reque st for a writ of prohibit ion. I n cause number 12-08- 00334-CR, Kennedy alleg es that (1) he has prese nted seve ral pro se documents to the district cler k for f iling, but the district cler

k has re fused to file them; (2) this court’s c lerk a nd one of he r deputies have pre vented him from f iling ce rtain pro se docume nts in thi s court; and (3) the trial court has failed to rule on K ennedy ’s motion to represe nt himself on appea l. He ag ain asser ts in cause number

12-08-00342- CR that thi s court’s c lerk a nd one of her deputies have pr evente d him from filing c erta in pro se docume nts here. I n the third petition, filed in ca use number 12-08-00361-CR, he seeks a wr it of mandamus and a writ of prohibition. As g rounds for the reque sted writs in that cause he alleg es that (1) the trial cour t preve nt ed him from filing a pro se moti on for new t rial; (2) the district cler k, this court’s clerk, and one of this court’s deputy cler ks have de nied Kenne dy ’s rig ht to file a “writ”; and (3) the trial cour t abused its discretion in d e nyingKe nn e dy ’s mot ion to re pr e se nt him se lf on a

pp e a l. B e c a

us e the iss ue s K e nn e dy

ra ise s in these proc eeding s arise out of the same trial c ourt ca use, we addre ss the three petitions togethe r. A cour t of appe als has the a

uthority to issue writs of m andamus ag ainst a judge of a district or county in the court of a

ppeals district and a ll writs necessa ry to enforc e its jurisdiction. T EX .K e n n e d y ha s fil e d m u lti p le p ro se d o c u m e n ts in t h is c o u rt. T h o se re la ting to h is d e sire to re p re se n t him se lf 1
o n a p p e a l h a v e b e e n ru le d o n a n d o rd e rs ha v e b e e n issu e d . T h o se re la ting to o the r m a tter s h a v e b e e n re tur n e d to K e n n e d y b e c a u se h e is n o t e n tit le d to h yb rid r e p re se n ta tio n

– p a rtia lly p ro s e a n d p a rtia lly b y c o u n se l. See L and er s v. S ta te , 55 0 S.W

. 2 d 27 2 , 28 0 (T ex. C ri m . A p p . 19 7 7 ). 2 G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 22.221 (Ve rnon 2004). Ke nnedy seeks a writ of m andamus ag ainst the district cler k and ag ainst the cler

k of this court and one of her deputies. He also seeks a writ of prohibition preve nting them f

rom ref using to file his doc uments. In order for the district c lerk to fa ll within our jurisdictional rea ch, it must be esta blished that the issuance of these writs is necessa ry to enforc e our jurisdiction. See id. ; In re Coron ado , 9 8 0 S

. W

. 2 d 6 9 1 , 6 9 2 -9 3 (T ex . Ap p . – S an An t o n i o 1 9 9 8 , o ri g. proce eding ). Ke nnedy

has made no such showing here

. Moreove r, we have located no authority for the proposition urg ed by Kenne dy that section 22.221 authorizes us to gr ant mandamus re lief or a writ of prohibition a g ainst this c ourt’s cler k and her deputy

. Thus, we have no jurisdiction to gr ant 1 t h e r e l i e f K e n n e dy r e qu e s t s a g a i n s tt h e d i s tr i c tc l e r k o r th i s c o urt ’ s c l e r

k an d h e r d e p u ty. Ke nn e dy ’s c omp la int s a g a ins t the tr ia l c ourt fa ll w ith in o ur

statut or y a uth or ity to i ssu e wr its of mandamus. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 22.221(b)( 1). Howe ver, ma ndamus relief

is authorized in a criminal case only if the relator establishes that (1) he has no other a dequate leg al re medy and (2) under the fac ts a

nd the law, the act soug ht to be compelled is pure ly minist eria l. Sta te e

x re l. H ill
v . Fi ft h Cou rt o f A pp e als , 34 S.W .3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App.2001). A party seekinga wr it of pr oh ibi tio n mu st d e mon str a te that ( 1) he ha s n o o the r a de qu a te re me dy at law and tha t ( 2) he is clea rly entitled to the relief s oug ht. Curr y v. Wilson , 853 S.W .2d 40, 43-44 (Te x . Crim. App. 1993). Ke nn e dy fi rs t a sse rt s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ha s f a ile d to ru le on his mot ion to r e pr e se nt h ims e lf
on a pp e a l. S inc e Ke nn e dy

fi le d h is m and amus pe tit ion , th e tr ia l c ourt ha s p ro vid e d th is c ourt

wi th a copy of an or der sig ned on Sep t em b er 8 , 2008 denying K ennedy ’s motion. Thus, Kennedy ’s complaint about the trial c ourt’s fa ilure to rule is moot. Kenne dy next urge s that the trial court ha s pr e ve nte d h im f

ro m f ili ng a pr o se mot ion fo r ne w tri a l and , f ur the r, tha t it a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in denying his motion to dismi ss h i s ap p el l at e counsel and re prese nt himself on appea l. He see ks
mand amus re lie f an d als o see ks a wr it of pr oh ibi tio n pre ve nti ng the tr ia l court fr om i nte rf e ri ngwi th his filing a pro se m otion for new t rial. Neither petition relatingto these complaints is acc ompanied b y ana p p e n d ix, see T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(j), or a rec ord, see T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7, that includes sufficie nt information for us to dete rmine whe ther Ke nnedy ’s asser tions have merit. Absent such3

inf or matio n, we c ann ot gra

nt m and amus re lie f o r a

wr it o f p ro hib iti on

a g a ins t th e tr ia l c ourt

. For the fore g oing r easons, we dismiss th e p e ti ti o n in c ause numbe r 12-08- 00334-CR in which Kenne dy reque sts relief a g ainst the district clerk, the cler k of this court and one of her deputies, and ag ainst the trial cour

t for its alleg ed fa il u re to rule on Kenne dy ’s motion to represe nt himself on appea l. We dis miss the petition in cause number 12-08-00342- CR in which Kennedy reque sts relief ag ainst the cler

k of this c ourt and one of her deputies. Finally , we dis miss the portion of the pe tition in cause number 12-08- 00361-C R re l at i n g t o the district cler k and the c lerk of this cour t and her deputy . We deny the po rt ion of the pe tit ion

re latin g to t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Opinion delivere d September 24, 2008. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)