in Re Dekendrick Harris

Opinion issued July 15, 2004


 





 








In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________


NO. 01-04-00702-CR

____________


IN RE DEKENDRICK HARRIS, Relator





Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus




 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Relator, DeKendrick Harris, requests that this Court compel respondent to dismiss his court-appointed counsel and appoint other counsel to represent him in cause number 966776, pending in the 228th District Court. Relator complains that he is dissatisfied with his present counsel. Relator further requests that we compel respondent to issue written rulings on all writs and motions filed on relator’s behalf.

               Regarding relator’s request for other counsel, a trial court has no duty to search for counsel agreeable to an indigent defendant. 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). Therefore, because the trial court would be well within the proper exercise of its discretion in denying any request from relator for other counsel, mandamus is not an available remedy. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).

               In addition, a relator must 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); Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j). Relator has not done so; we have not been provided with a record that shows he filed any motions or otherwise requested any relief from respondent.

               Therefore the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

               It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM


Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Alcala, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).