in Re Jason Miears ( 2009 )

i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-09-00728-CR
IN RE Jason MIEARS
Original Mandamus Proceeding1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 25, 2009
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On November 13, 2009, relator Jason Miears filed three petitions for writ of mandamus
complaining of the trial court’s failure to arraign him.2
Under Safety-Kleen Corp., mandamus will not issue unless the record shows that a motion
has been properly filed and the trial court has failed to rule on it in a reasonable amount of time. See
Safety-Kleen v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding).
Any motion relating to relator’s complaint that he has not been arraigned would have to be filed by
1
… This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-6566, styled State v. Jason Miears, pending in the 379th
Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
2
… O ne petition is entitled “W rit of Habeas Corpus” and one petition is entitled “Petition for Writ of Quo
W arranto;” however, we construe them as mandamus petitions because they also complain of the trial court’s failure to
arraign relator.
04-09-00728-CR
relator’s appointed counsel since he is not entitled to hybrid representation in the criminal proceeding
in the trial court. See Dunn v. State, 819 S.W.2d 510, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also
Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481,
498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Consequently, we do not find any abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Additionally, relator requests that this court order the sheriff to transport him to a psychiatric
hospital. However, we have no mandamus jurisdiction over a sheriff unless the issuance of the writ
is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); see also TEX . GOV ’T CODE ANN . § 22.221(a)-(b) (Vernon 2004).
We conclude relator’s request is not necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.
Therefore, we conclude that relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. TEX . R. APP . P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-