Court Opinion

ID: 9375247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-26 09:12:50.094533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.185638
License: Public Domain

Motion Dismissed, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied, and Memorandum
Opinion filed February 23, 2023.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-23-00019-CR
                               NO. 14-23-00020-CR

                     IN RE MARKISE DURDEN, Relator

                        ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                          WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                             176th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
               Trial Court Cause No. 17732770 & No. 17732840

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On January 9, 2023, relator Markise Durden filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R.
App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Nikita
V. Harmon, presiding judge of the 176th District Court of Harris County, to
remove “unwanted court-appointed counsel. . . .”
      Relator is represented by counsel. A defendant is not entitled to hybrid
representation, and, as a consequence, a trial court is free to disregard any pro se
motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel. Jenkins v. State,
592 S.W.3d 894, 902 n.47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). Moreover, in the absence of a
right to hybrid representation, relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus
presents nothing for this court’s review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498
(Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 425 n.1 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991).

      Additionally, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show that
(1) he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and (2) what he
seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not a discretionary act. In re Powell, 516
S.W.3d 488, 494–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a
ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and pending before
it, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re Henry, 525
S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). For
relator to be entitled to mandamus relief, the record must show (1) the motion was
filed and brought to the attention of the respondent-judge for a ruling, and (2) the
respondent-judge has not ruled on the motion within a reasonable time after the
motion was submitted to the court for a ruling or after the party requested a ruling.
In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig.
proceeding).

      As the party seeking mandamus relief, relator has the burden of providing
this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Id. at
73–74; Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must
file with the mandamus petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that
is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying
proceeding”). To establish that the motion was filed, the relator must provide
                                         2
either a file-stamped copy of the motion or other proof that the motion in fact was
filed and is pending before the trial court. Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 74. Merely filing
a motion with a court clerk does not show that the motion was brought to the trial
court’s attention for a ruling because the clerk’s knowledge is not imputed to the
trial court. In re Ramos, 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2020, orig. proceeding).

      Relator has not provided this court with a mandamus record to demonstrate
that a motion for waiver of counsel is pending in the trial court. Similarly, there is
no record that relator has brought a pending motion to the attention of the
respondent-judge for a ruling.     Mere filing is insufficient because the clerk’s
knowledge is not imputed to the trial judge. See Ramos, 598 S.W.3d at 473. The
respondent-judge is not required to consider a motion that has not been called to
the trial court’s attention by proper means. See Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382. Even if
relator showed that his motion is properly pending in the trial court and the trial
court was made aware of it, relator has not shown that it has been pending for an
unreasonable period of time. In sum, relator has not made the requisite showing.
See Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 73.

      Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss as moot
relator’s motion for waiver of counsel filed in this Court.

                                       PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Wilson.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                          3