In Re Jose Mendez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 29, 2023
• Docket: 03-23-00798-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00798-CV

In re Jose Mendez

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, defendant in the underlying criminal matter, has filed a submission with

this Court entitled “De Novo Review,” complaining of the trial court’s alleged substitution of

appointed counsel for his retained counsel and asserting that the appointment violates his right to

the counsel of his choice under the Sixth Amendment. We deny the submission, which we are

reviewing as a petition for writ of mandamus.

It is Relator’s burden to request and properly establish entitlement to

extraordinary relief, including by providing this Court with a sufficient record from which to

evaluate his claims. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Smith,

No. 03-14-00478-CV, 2014 WL 4079922, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 13, 2014, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief when relator failed to provide sufficient

record); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (requiring relator to file record containing sworn

copies “of every document that is material to [his] claim for relief and that was filed in any

underlying proceeding”). Relator has not provided us with a record, hearing transcripts, a certified or file-

stamped copy of the complained-of order or any related motion, or any material from which we

may determine that he raised a proper objection to the substitution. On this record, we conclude

that relator has failed to show entitlement to relief. Accordingly, his petition for writ of

mandamus must be and is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). The pending motion is dismissed

as moot.

__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Smith

Filed: December 29, 2023