in Re Danny R Alejandro

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 7, 2019
Docket14-19-00058-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Danny R Alejandro (in Re Danny R Alejandro) 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.

Bluebook
in Re Danny R Alejandro, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed February 7, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00058-CR

IN RE DANNY R. ALEJANDRO, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 339th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1003546

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 22, 2019, relator Danny R. Alejandro 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 Maria T. Jackson, presiding judge of the 339th District Court of Harris County, to issue an order directing the Harris County District Attorney’s Office to produce offense reports used in his trial for burglary of a habitation “as testimonial evidence against him.” Relator seeks the reports to use in preparation of a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus.

On January 2, 2019, the trial court appointed counsel to investigate relator’s post-conviction claim related to his conviction for burglary of a habitation. 1 A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, 116 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 222 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In the absence of a right to hybrid representation, relator has not presented anything for this court’s consideration. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Turner v. State, 805 S.W.3d 423, 425 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

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 Do Not Publish — Tex.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

1 This court affirmed relator’s conviction on June 29, 2016. See Alejandro v. State, No. 14-05-00905-CR, 2006 WL 1766171 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 29, 2006, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication). On January 10, 2019, relator’s appointed counsel filed in relator’s appeal a request for a copy of a complete record of relator’s trial for burglary of a habitation. We may take judicial notice of our own records in a related proceeding involving the same or nearly the same parties. See Weems v. State, 550 S.W.3d 776, 778 n.1 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.); Ex parte Joyner, 367 S.W.3d 737, 738 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). Therefore, we take judicial notice of the filing by relator’s appointed counsel in the related appeal. 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Patrick v. State
906 S.W.2d 481 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Robinson v. State
240 S.W.3d 919 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Ex Parte Bohannan
350 S.W.3d 116 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011)
Ex parte Joyner
367 S.W.3d 737 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012)
Weems v. State
550 S.W.3d 776 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Danny R Alejandro, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-danny-r-alejandro-texapp-2019.