in Re Alberto Miguel Lopez, Relator

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00538-CR

IN RE Alberto Miguel LOPEZ Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 3, 2011 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On July 27, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying appointed counsel George Aristotelidis. However, the record indicates Aristotelidis was not disqualified, but instead he filed a motion to withdraw as appointed counsel which was granted by the trial court.

In a criminal case, in order to be entitled to mandamus relief relator must establish: (1) he lacks an adequate legal remedy; and (2) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial. In re Reed, 137 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) (citing State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). “‘[A]n act is ‘ministerial’ if it does not involve the exercise of any discretion.’” Id. (quoting State ex rel.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-5048, styled State of Texas v. Alberto Miguel Lopez, in the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Roman presiding.

04-11-00538-CR

Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 67 S.W.3d 177, 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). “It is generally within the discretion of the trial court whether or not trial counsel should be allowed to withdraw from a case.” Brewer v. State, 649 S.W.2d 628, 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); See also Tuffiash v. State, 948 S.W.2d 873, 878 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, writ ref’d). Because the trial court’s ruling on the motion to withdraw as counsel was a discretionary matter, mandamus relief is not available. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH