In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00010-CV
IN RE JAMES HOWARD TAYLOR, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
February 28, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Relator, James Howard Taylor, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this
Court. In this petition, Taylor appears to ask this Court to direct Respondent, the
Honorable Ralph H. Walton, Jr., to remove Michael W. Minton as Taylor’s appointed
appellate attorney, and to appoint new counsel on appeal.1 We will deny Taylor’s
petition.
1
While we deny Taylor’s petition for failure to comply with the requisites of a petition, in
the interest of judicial economy, we note that an indigent defendant does not have the right to
choose his own appointed counsel. Unless he waives his right to counsel and elects to proceed
pro se, or otherwise shows adequate reason for the appointment of new counsel, he is not
entitled to discharge his counsel but must accept the counsel appointed by the trial court. See
Thomas v. State, 550 S.W.2d 64, 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Additionally, adequate reason for
the discharge of counsel and appointment of new counsel rests within the sound discretion of
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.32 identifies the requirements for a petition
for writ of mandamus filed in this Court. Taylor has failed to comply with these
requirements. Rule 52.3(a) requires that a petition must include a complete list of all
parties and the names and addresses of all counsel. Taylor does not list the names of
the parties against whom he seeks mandamus relief apart from their identification in the
argument portion of his petition, and wholly fails to identify their counsel. Rule 52.3(b)
requires that the petition include a table of contents with references to the pages of the
petition and an indication of the subject matter of each issue or point raised in the
petition. Taylor’s petition includes no table of contents. Rule 52.3(c) requires that a
petition include an index of authorities in which all authorities cited in the petition are
arranged alphabetically and the page(s) upon which the authorities are cited is
indicated. Taylor’s petition includes no index of authorities. Rule 52.3(d) requires a
statement of the case. Taylor’s petition does not contain a statement of the case and
does not identify the nature of the underlying proceeding. 3 Rule 52.3(e) requires a
statement of jurisdiction. Taylor’s petition does not include a statement of jurisdiction.
Rule 52.3(f) requires the petition include a concise statement of all issues or points
presented for relief. Taylor’s petition includes no such statement. Rule 52.3(g) requires
the petition include a concise statement of facts pertinent to the issues or points
presented. Taylor’s petition includes no such statement. Rule 52.3(h) requires the
_________________________
the trial court. Carroll v. State, 176 S.W.3d 249, 255-56 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004,
pet. ref'd).
2
Further citation to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure will be by reference to “Rule __.”
3
Taylor contends that mandamus is necessary for him to appeal trial court cause number
CR12392. However, nowhere in Taylor’s petition does he identify the nature of this case nor
does he provide any information from which the nature of this case may be gleened.
2
petition contain a “clear and concise argument for the contentions made” with citations
to law and to the record. Taylor’s petition identifies the relief that he seeks but fails to
present any clear argument for why he is entitled to this relief. Rule 52.3(j) requires that
the person filing the petition must certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and
concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent
evidence included in the appendix or record. Taylor declares that the facts contained in
the petition are “true and correct to the best of my knowledge.” However, Taylor’s
petition does not include the certification required by Rule 52.3(j). Finally, Rule
52.3(k)(1)(A) requires that an appendix to the petition contain a certified or sworn copy
of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of.
Taylor includes a file-stamped copy of the order denying his appellate counsel’s motion
to withdraw, but this order is neither certified nor sworn to by Taylor. Each of these
items are required in a petition for writ of mandamus and, as Taylor failed to include
them in his petition, we will not grant the relief that he requests.
For the foregoing reasons, we deny Taylor’s petition for writ of mandamus.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
3