Opinion issued May 19, 2009
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-09-00415-CR
____________
IN RE CHARLES R. EDWARDS, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Charles R. Edwards, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, requesting that this Court compel respondent to grant him jail time credits in trial court cause number 1167894. (1) Relator's petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. For example, it does not include a table of contents, index of authorities, an appendix that contains a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, 52.3(b), (c), (k). Morever, relator has not certified that he has reviewed the petition and that every factual statement in the petition is supported by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3 (j). This Court has previously stated, that although we generously read a pro se litigant's petition in an original proceeding, we will hold "the relator to the same procedural standards we apply to other litigants." Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). In this case, relator has not complied Rule of rule 52.3 and has not provided us with a record that shows that he is entitled to mandamus relief.
We also note that relator gave notice of appeal in trial court cause number 1167894, and the appeal is assigned to this Court as appellate cause number 01-08-00502-CR. Relator is represented by appointed counsel, David Suhler, and he is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
We deny any pending motion as moot.
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Alcala, and Higley.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
1.