In Re Jose Mendez v. the State of Texas
Date Filed2023-12-29
Docket03-23-00798-CV
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
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
2