in Re Jacquel Torran O'Neal ( 2014 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14-00142-CR
IN RE JACQUEL TORRAN O'NEAL
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jacquel Torran O’Neal takes the position in this mandamus proceeding that the
elected prosecutor and his staff cannot represent the State in O’Neal’s underlying
criminal proceeding. The State had moved to recuse and appoint a special prosecutor
based upon the circumstances that existed in early 2012. A special prosecutor was
appointed. The circumstances changed and the Special Prosecutor moved to withdraw
and allow the elected prosecutor to continue the prosecution of the case. The trial court
granted the Special Prosecutor’s motion.
O’Neal has an adequate remedy by appeal of the issue of whether the prosecutor
is disqualified and thus, can no longer represent the State in the prosecution of O’Neal. 1
See Landers v. State, 256 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Goodman v. State, 302 S.W.3d
462 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, pet. ref’d); Scarborough v. State, 54 S.W.3d 419 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2001, pet. ref'd). Accordingly, O’Neal’s petition for writ of mandamus is
denied.2
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
(Justice Davis concurs without opinion)
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed May 22, 2014
Do not publish
[OT06]
1 The appealability of the issue is different when the elected prosecutor complains about being
disqualified from representing the State. See State ex rel. Eidson v. Edwards, 793 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Crim. App.
1990) (plurality opinion); State ex rel. Hill v. Pirtle, 887 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (plurality
opinion); In re Ligon, 408 S.W.3d 888 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, orig. proceeding).
2There are several procedural issues in this petition, including a defective certification of the petition and
exhibits in the appendix; however, we use Rule 2 to overlook the procedural issues and reach the merits
of the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2; 52.3.
In re O'Neal Page 2