in Re: Billy G. Colvin
This text of in Re: Billy G. Colvin (in Re: Billy G. Colvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-03-00159-CV
IN RE: BILLY G. COLVIN
                                                                                                                                                            Â
Original Mandamus Proceeding
                                                                                                                                                                                      Â
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
            Billy G. Colvin has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks us to order his appointed attorney, Mike Martin, and the Honorable Lauren Parish, Judge of the 115th Judicial District Court, to provide him with justice. On August 6, 2002, this Court issued a mandamus ordering the trial court to provide a copy of the motion for DNA testing to the State and then proceed with Colvin's motion for DNA testing as required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.02 (Vernon Supp. 2004).
            Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. 1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion, or in the absence of another statutory remedy, when the trial court fails to observe a mandatory statutory provision conferring a right or forbidding a particular action. Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985).
            Colvin now complains that his attorney, appointed for the DNA hearing by the trial court, has not been willing to communicate with him, that the trial court has not seen that justice was done pursuant to our prior order, and that his attorney was necessarily constitutionally ineffective for failing to keep him apprised of the progress of his case.
            This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a "judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to consider the complaints against Colvin's attorney.
            Colvin's complaints about the trial court suggest that a hearing was conducted May 28, 2003, and that an order was entered on that date which was not provided to him. We have contacted the district clerk's office in Upshur County. In response, we have received a copy of the court's finding that there was no DNA evidence retrieved and that DNA testing was therefore impossible. The court signed that order August 30, 2002. The clerk's office also informed us that Colvin submitted an "affidavit of testimony" on May 27, 2003, which the trial court treated as a request to reconsider, and overruled it June 23, 2003. Thus, the August 30, 2002, order is the final ruling on the DNA request.
            Colvin has not provided this Court with information justifying issuance of a writ of mandamus against the trial court.
            The petition is denied.
                                                                        Jack Carter
                                                                        Justice
Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â December 3, 2003
Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â December 4, 2003
e" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
|
|
Â
In The
Court of Appeals
                       Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
                                               ______________________________
                                                            No. 06-09-00007-CR
                                               ______________________________
                                  DARNELL HARTSFIELD, Appellant
                                                               V.
                                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
                                                                                                 Â
                                     On Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court
                                                             Rusk County, Texas
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re: Billy G. Colvin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-billy-g-colvin-texapp-2003.