in Re Chris Flood

Opinion

Opinion issued February 17, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

counsel.1 Flood also filed a motion for emergency relief. The Court requested a response from the State to relator’s petition and motion. The State filed a response to the motion for emergency relief, stating that the State was unopposed to a stay, but advised this Court that the State would not be filing a response to the petition.

After reviewing the petitions, appendices, and authorities cited, the Court concludes that Flood has not established his entitlement to mandamus or prohibition relief. See State ex rel. Hill v. Ct. of App. for 5th Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (setting out requirements for writ of mandamus relief); In re Yates, 193 S.W.3d 151, 152 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (setting out requirements for writ of prohibition relief).

Accordingly, the Court denies the petitions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Alexandra Nicks, cause number 1663543 and 1663544, pending in the 338th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Ramona Franklin presiding.

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-23-00100-CR; NO. 01-23-00101-CR ——————————— IN RE CHRIS FLOOD, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Petition for Writ of Prohibition MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Chris Flood, seeks a writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition to compel the trial court to discharge Flood from representation of the defendant and to prohibit the trial court from continuing proceedings with Flood as unwilling