in Re: Billy G. Colvin

6-96-028-CV Long Trusts v. Dowd

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-03-00159-CV

______________________________

IN RE: BILLY G. COLVIN

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Billy G. Colvin has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks us to order his appointed attorney, Mike Martin, and the Honorable Lauren Parish, Judge of the 115th Judicial District Court, to provide him with justice. On August 6, 2002, this Court issued a mandamus ordering the trial court to provide a copy of the motion for DNA testing to the State and then proceed with Colvin's motion for DNA testing as required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.02 (Vernon Supp. 2004).

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. 1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion, or in the absence of another statutory remedy, when the trial court fails to observe a mandatory statutory provision conferring a right or forbidding a particular action. Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985).

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Colvin now complains that his attorney, appointed for the DNA hearing by the trial court, has not been willing to communicate with him, that the trial court has not seen that justice was done pursuant to our prior order, and that his attorney was necessarily constitutionally ineffective for failing to keep him apprised of the progress of his case.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a "judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. Â§ 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to consider the complaints against Colvin's attorney.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Colvin's complaints about the trial court suggest that a hearing was conducted MayÂ 28, 2003, and that an order was entered on that date which was not provided to him. We have contacted the district clerk's office in Upshur County. In response, we have received a copy of the court's finding that there was no DNA evidence retrieved and that DNA testing was therefore impossible. The court signed that order August 30, 2002. The clerk's office also informed us that Colvin submitted an "affidavit of testimony" on May 27, 2003, which the trial court treated as a request to reconsider, and overruled it June 23, 2003. Thus, the August 30, 2002, order is the final ruling on the DNA request.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Colvin has not provided this Court with information justifying issuance of a writ of mandamus against the trial court.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The petition is denied.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Jack Carter

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Justice

Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â December 3, 2003

Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â December 4, 2003

e" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>

In The

Court of Appeals

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ______________________________

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â No. 06-09-00007-CR

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ______________________________

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â DARNELL HARTSFIELD, Appellant

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â V.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â On Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Rusk County, Texas

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Trial Court No. CR05-334

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MEMORANDUM OPINION

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â A jury convicted Darnell Hartsfield of five counts of capital murder; he was sentenced to Â punishment at life imprisonment. Hartsfield appeals from his conviction and has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to all of his appeals.^{^[1]}Â He argues that the trial court committed reversible error in that (1) the evidence supporting his conviction was legally and factually insufficient and (2) admitting evidence of an extraneous offense.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date in HartsfieldÂs appeal in cause number 06-09-00006-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not been shown in this case.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We affirm the trial courtÂs judgment.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Chief Justice

Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â October 21, 2009

Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â February 4, 2010

Do Not PublishÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

^{^[1]}Defendant appeals from five convictions, for capital murder, cause numbers 06-09-00006-CR through 06-09-00010-CR.

in Re: Billy G. Colvin

Related Cases