Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May
16, 2019.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-19-00366-CR
IN RE DEANDRE DEBOEST, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
232nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1604855
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 2, 2019, relator DeAndre DeBoest filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App.
P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Josh Hill,
presiding judge of the 232nd District Court of Harris County, to permit relator to
proceed pro se in the underlying case.
Relator asserts that he has filed at least nine motions to proceed pro se, has
demanded in open court that he be allowed to proceed pro se, and has refused to
accept a court-appointed attorney. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must
show that (1) the relator has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the
relator seeks; and (2) what the relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act
rather than a discretionary act. In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494–95 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2017).
It is relator’s burden to provide a sufficient record to establish that relator is
entitled to relief. See In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Relator has failed to do so. Relator did not file a
record with his petition containing the motions he purportedly filed, any rulings on
his motions, any other relevant documents filed in the trial court, or any record of
the proceeding in which relator claims that he demanded in open court that the trial
court allow him to proceed pro se. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7.
Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly,
we deny his petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Poissant.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
2