in Re Glenn Edward Champagne ( 2012 )

NUMBERS 13-12-00014-CR, 13-12-00015-CR,
& 13-12-00016-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE GLENN EDWARD CHAMPAGNE
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Glenn Edward Champagne, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in the foregoing causes on January 12, 2012, through which he seeks to
compel the Honorable Buddie J. Hahn, Judge of the 260th District Court of Orange
1
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is
not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
County, Texas, to grant credit for time served. Relator further seeks additional
unspecified relief regarding various different underlying trial court causes. 2
I. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
This Court’s original jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas
Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004). Section
22.221(b) expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to writs of
mandamus issued against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals’
district” or against a “judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of
inquiry . . . in the court of appeals district.” See id. § 22.221(b).
The trial court causes of action at issue in these proceedings arise from Orange
County and Jefferson County. Neither Orange County nor Jefferson County are located
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(n)
(West Supp. 2010). Accordingly, we do not have territorial jurisdiction to grant the
requested relief. See id. § 22.221(b).
II. ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION
Relator has appealed his criminal conviction in trial court cause number D-
100387-R, and his appeal from that conviction was transferred to this Court from the
Ninth Court of Appeals by the Texas Supreme Court as part of its docket equalization
activities. See id. § 73.001 (West 2005). This appeal has been docketed herein as
cause 13-11-00657-CV. Relator is represented in that appeal by appointed counsel.
2
Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus raises issues pertaining to trial court cause number D-
100387-R in the 260th District Court of Orange County, Texas, appearing in appellate cause number 13-
12-00014-CR; trial court cause number C-159866 in the 317th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas,
appearing in appellate cause number 13-12-00015-CR; and trial court cause number D-100390-R in the
260th District Court of Orange County, Texas, appearing in appellate cause number 13-12-00016-CR.
The Honorable Buddie J. Hahn is the Presiding Judge of the 260th District Court of Orange County,
Texas, and the Honorable Larry Thorne is the Presiding Judge of the 317th District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas.
2
It is unclear whether, or to what extent, the actions complained of in this
mandamus proceeding are ancillary to or related to relator’s criminal appeal pending in
this Court. See generally In re Richardson, 252 S.W.3d 822, 830 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). We have the statutory authority to issue all writs
necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(a); In re Richardson, 327
S.W.3d 848, 851 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, orig. proceeding); In re Phillips, 296
S.W.3d 682, 684 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, orig. proceeding). However, relator has
not shown that his requested relief is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of this Court
insofar as it pertains to his appeal. See id. § 22.221(a).
Moreover, relator is represented by appointed counsel in his appeal and is not
entitled to hybrid representation. See 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).
Because relator has counsel, we do not address the merits of his pro se mandamus
petition. Moreover, we note that the trial court is entitled to look solely to counsel and is
not required to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed in a criminal proceeding in which
the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922; Patrick,
906 S.W.2d at 498.
III. BURDEN OF PROOF
It is relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus
relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.
proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself
entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, relator
must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence
3
included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise
argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the
appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that
relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus
relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a)
(specifying the required contents for the record).
In the instant case, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus fails to meet the
foregoing requirements and is defective. Accordingly, relator has failed to meet his
burden of proof to obtain relief.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden
to obtain mandamus relief. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals
at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Specifically, relator has not
shown either that this Court has jurisdiction to address his complaints or that any of the
requested relief is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction over his pending appeal.
Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in each of these causes is
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed this the
17th day of January, 2012.
4