in Re: Darryl K. Pittman ( 2003 )

Opinion issued November 20, 2003

  In The

Court of Appeals  

For The  

First District of Texas  

____________

NO. 01-03-01132-CV

____________

IN RE DARRYL K. PITTMAN, Relator

---

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus  

---

  MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Relator, Darryl K. Pittman, has filed a motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and a petition for writ of mandamus. The motion for leave to file the petition is granted. We next consider the petition on its merits.

               Relator raises two grounds for relief. First, he requests that this Court compel respondent to dismiss his court-appointed counsel and appoint other counsel to represent him in cause number 933771, pending in the 184th District Court. Relator further argues that he has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

               A writ of mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy at law. Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding).  

               Regarding relator’s first contention that his appointed counsel is rendering ineffective assistance and should be replaced, trial counsel’s performance is a matter that may be addressed on direct appeal if adequately supported by the record. See Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). In addition, a trial court has no duty to search for counsel agreeable to an indigent defendant. Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945, 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Solis v. State, 792 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Therefore, because relator has an adequate remedy by appeal if his trial counsel’s representation is ineffective, and because a trial court is well within the proper exercise of its discretion in denying a request for the appointment of other counsel, mandamus is not an available remedy. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).  

               Regarding relator’s speedy trial claims, relator has an adequate remedy at law. The question of whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated is directly appealable after conviction. See Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (conviction reversed on speedy trial grounds). In Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 592-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied mandamus relief, holding that the relator had an adequate remedy at law on his speedy trial claims.  

               Because relator is not eligible for mandamus relief on either ground, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

               It is so ORDERED.  

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Keyes and Alcala.