in Re Johanson L. Watson, Relator ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                    NO. 07-08-0232-CV
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    AT AMARILLO
    PANEL B
    JUNE 30, 2008
    In re: JOHANSON LEE WATSON,
    Relator
    ______________________________________
    Original Proceeding
    _____________________________________
    Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
    Pending before this court is the petition of Johanson Lee Watson for a writ of
    mandamus. He requests that we “direct the trial court to comply with its own order.” The
    order in question was entered in March of 2007 and required DNA testing on evidence
    involved in his criminal trial. We deny the petition.
    According to relator's petition, he moved for DNA testing and appointed counsel.
    The trial court subsequently granted both requests. However, relator, acting pro se despite
    having legal counsel, maintains that the trial court failed to comply with its directive and
    seeks a writ telling the “trial court to comply with its own order” and apparently cause the
    DNA testing to occur.
    In civil cases, a party is entitled to represent himself or to be represented by an
    attorney, but he is not entitled to representation partly by counsel and partly pro se. TEX .
    R. CIV. P. 7; In re Sondley, 
    990 S.W.2d 361
    , 362 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1999, orig.
    proceeding). Moreover, we have no obligation to accept or consider pleadings filed pro se
    by a party who is represented by counsel. In re 
    Sondley, 990 S.W.2d at 362
    . So, because
    Watson has appointed counsel but no right to hybrid representation, we deny his petition
    for a writ of mandamus per our holding in Sondley.
    Brian Quinn
    Chief Justice
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-08-00232-CV

Filed Date: 6/30/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/8/2015