in Re Daniel Lee Ainsworth, Relator ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-15-00423-CR
IN RE DANIEL LEE AINSWORTH, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
November 20, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Relator Daniel Lee Ainsworth is a prison inmate appearing pro se. In this original
proceeding he asks that we issue a writ of mandamus against respondents, the
Honorable Don R. Emerson, judge of the 320th District Court of Potter County, and the
Honorable W.F. (Corky) Roberts, judge of the Potter County Court at Law Number One.
While not clearly stated, relator may also seek relief against Caroline Woodburn, Potter
County District Clerk, and Julie Smith, Potter County Clerk.
Relator’s petition does not comply with appellate rule 52.3. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.
For this reason alone any relief requested against Judge Emerson and Judge Roberts is
denied. In re Bibbs, 07-11-00393-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 8192 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo Oct. 13, 2011, orig. proceeding) (denying petition for mandamus for
noncompliance with appellate rule 52.3). Relator presents nothing indicating relief by
mandamus against the district clerk and county clerk is necessary to enforce our
jurisdiction.1 See In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998,
orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (explaining district clerk is not within the mandamus
jurisdiction of court of appeals unless it is shown issuance of writ of mandamus against
clerk is necessary to enforce court of appeals’ jurisdiction). Accordingly, any relief
relator seeks against Ms. Woodburn and Ms. Smith is dismissed for want of subject
matter jurisdiction.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
1
Relator has causes pending in this court. Ex parte Ainsworth, Nos. 07-15-
00091-CR; 07-15-00106-CR & 07-15-00107-CR and Ainsworth v. State Nos. 07-15-
00205-CR, 07-15-00206-CR & 07-15-00207-CR. He is represented by counsel in those
causes. To any degree that relator’s petition for mandamus is connected with those
pending causes, it is an improper attempt to accomplish hybrid representation. See
Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (op. on reh’g) (“There is
no constitutional right in Texas to hybrid representation partially pro se and partially by
counsel”).
2