Opinion issued August 19, 2004
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-04-00822-CR
____________
IN RE JERNEAL D. CAMPBELL, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Jerneal D. Campbell, filed in this Court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we order respondent to take the following actions in cause number 907021, pending in the district court: (1) conduct an examining trial; (2) appoint an investigator; (3) discharge relator’s court-appointed counsel and appoint substitute counsel; and (4) rule expeditiously on relator’s pro se motions.
A writ of mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy at law. Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding). If the respondent trial court has a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act, the relator must make a demand for performance that the respondent refuses. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). The relator must also provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).
We deny relief for the following reasons:
(1)Relator’s right to an examination trial was terminated by the return of the indictment in cause number 907021. Campbell v. State, 747 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no pet.).
(2)Respondent has no duty to rule on relator’s pro se motions because relator is represented by appointed counsel, and relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. In re Cooks, No. 06-04-00053-CV, slip op. at 2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 29, 2004, orig. proceeding); Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding).
(3)Respondent has no duty to discharge relator’s appointed counsel and search for substitute counsel agreeable to relator. Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945, 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Solis v. State, 792 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).
(4)Relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in that it does not certify that a copy was served on respondent. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5.
(5)Relator has not provided us with a record that shows respondent trial court clearly abused its discretion or violated a duty imposed by law. Canadian Helicopters Ltd., 876 S.W.2d at 305.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Alcala, and Higley.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).