Court Opinion

ID: 9840347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-16 10:09:51.050225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:25:26.011124
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00214-CR
                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
                                           TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:                                                   §

WILLIAM LAMBERT SKINNER, III,                            §        ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR                                                  §

                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                            PER CURIAM
        Relator William Lambert Skinner, III, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding and
appears to challenge the granting of a motion to withdraw as counsel. 1
        At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, Relator’s counsel called Relator “for the
limited purpose of his motion,” indicating that the motion was filed by Relator. In fact, Relator
acknowledged previously telling counsel that he wanted to proceed pro se. He reaffirmed
wanting to continue pro se or a “reassignment of counsel.” After a discussion with Respondent,
Relator persisted with his request to proceed pro se. Respondent held that Relator be allowed to
represent himself but stated that counsel would serve as standby counsel if the case proceeded to
trial. Accordingly, the hearing affirmatively reflects Relator’s intention to proceed pro se, which
resulted in the ruling he now challenges. Because Relator complains of a ruling he caused, we
conclude that Relator cannot establish that Respondent abused his discretion. 2 See Woodall v.

        1
          Respondent is the Honorable Alfonso Charles, Judge of the 124th District Court in Gregg County, Texas.
The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.
        2
            Relator further complains of the Gregg County District Clerk’s acceptance and maintenance of filings. A
district clerk is not a judge over which this Court has mandamus jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 22.221(a),
(b) (West Supp. 2020) (writ power); see also In re Mack, No. 10-17-00186-CR, 2017 WL 2819091, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Waco June 28, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re Eaton, No. 12–15–
00118–CR, 2016 WL 6876502, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler, Nov. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated
for publication); In re Vargas, No. 01-12-00351-CV, 2012 WL 1454550, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Apr. 26, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op) (per curiam). Nor does the record demonstrate that issuance of a writ of
mandamus against the District Clerk is necessary to protect this Court’s jurisdiction. See In re Talkington, No. 12-
07-00272-CR, 2007 WL 2178551, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler July 31, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not
State, 336 S.W.3d 634, 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (“a party cannot take advantage of an error
that it invited or caused, even if such error is fundamental”); see also In re Halbert, Nos. 12-23-
00013-CR–12-23-00031-CR, 2023 WL 2804434, at *4-5 (Tex. App.—Tyler Apr. 5, 2023, orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (in denying mandamus
petition as to withdrawal and appointment of new counsel, noting that relator consented to
proceeding to trial with new counsel); In re Culberson, No. 05-22-01204-CV, 2022 WL
16959254, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated
for publication) (denying mandamus petition seeking order compelling trial court to vacate order
granting relator’s own motion in criminal case, noting that relator is estopped from seeking relief
based on an action he induced). We deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 3

Opinion delivered September 13, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

designated for publication); see also Ex parte Sanders, No. WR-80,356-01, 2013 WL 5872901, at *1 (Tex. Crim.
App. Oct. 30, 2013) (order, not designated for publication) (per curiam); In re Foster, No. 14-16-00698-CR, 2016
WL 5853282, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 6, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (per curiam); In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding).
        3
          Relator also has an appeal pending in cause number 12-23-00213-CR to challenge the ruling on the
motion to withdraw.

                                                          2
                                 COURT OF APPEALS
     TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                         JUDGMENT

                                       SEPTEMBER 13, 2023

                                       NO. 12-23-00214-CR

                           WILLIAM LAMBERT SKINNER, III,
                                      Relator
                                        V.

                            HON. JUDGE ALFONSO CHARLES,
                                      Respondent

                                      ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

              ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by
William Lambert Skinner, III; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00214-CR and
the defendant in trial court cause number 54561-B, pending on the docket of the 124th Judicial
District Court of Gregg County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed
herein on August 21, 2023, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion
of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and
ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, denied.
                  By per curiam opinion.
                  Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.