in Re Terrance Fletcher, Relator

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Terrance Fletcher, Relator

DecidedApril 28, 2010

Docket04-10-00302-CR

StatusPublished

This text of in Re Terrance Fletcher, Relator (in Re Terrance Fletcher, Relator) 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 Terrance Fletcher, Relator, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00302-CR

IN RE Terrance FLETCHER

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 28, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On April 15, 2010, relator Terrance Fletcher filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus

complaining of rulings on several matters allegedly filed in his pending criminal case. Relator’s

petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. For example,

relator’s petition does not include an appendix that contains a certified or sworn copy of any order

complained of. See TEX . R. APP . P. 52.3(k). Additionally, relator’s petition is not accompanied by

a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to relator’s claim for relief and that was

filed in the underlying proceeding. See TEX . R. APP . P. 52.7(a). In sum, relator has not complied with

1 … This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-1384, styled State of Texas v. Terrance Fletcher, pending in the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Phillip A. Kazen, Jr. presiding. 04-10-00302-CR

Rule 52.3 and Rule 52.7, and has not provided us with a record that shows he is entitled to

mandamus relief.

We also note relator is represented by Mr. Cornelius N. Cox in the underlying proceeding.

We conclude Mr. Cox is also relator’s counsel for an original proceeding on the issue presented.

Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se petition

presents nothing for our review. See id.; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, relator’s petition is denied. Relator’s motion for leave to file the petition for a

writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-

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