In Re Jesse Prather v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Jesse Prather v. the State of Texas (In Re Jesse Prather v. the State of Texas) 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
Opinion issued June 25, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00438-CR ——————————— IN RE JESSE PRATHER, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Jesse Prather filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking that we
direct the trial court and district attorney’s office to compel (1) a response to
relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus; (2) a polygraph exam to prove
actual innocence; and (3) remove attorney Jeffery Erskine from representation of
relator.1
1 The underlying case is State of Texas v. Jesse Prather, cause number 1867291, pending in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Hazel B. Jones presiding. Relator states that he has been arrested and jailed but has not been indicted.
He states that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but an 11.07 writ is reserved for defendants
who have been convicted of a felony offense. See TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. art. 11.07, §1.
Relator also states that he is represented by counsel and relator has not
shown that this counsel has withdrawn. A criminal defendant has no right to
hybrid representation, and “a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions
presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel.” Robinson v. State, 240
S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Moreover, because relator has counsel,
his pro se petition presents nothing for review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d
481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re Badyrka, No. 01-23-00235-CR, 2023 WL
3010961, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 20, 2023, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op., not designated for publication).
Accordingly, we deny the petition. Any pending motions are dismissed as
moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Jesse Prather v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jesse-prather-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.