in Re Alberto Miguel Lopez, Relator ( 2011 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00538-CR
IN RE Alberto Miguel LOPEZ
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 3, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On July 27, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the
trial court to vacate its order disqualifying appointed counsel George Aristotelidis. However, the
record indicates Aristotelidis was not disqualified, but instead he filed a motion to withdraw as
appointed counsel which was granted by the trial court.
In a criminal case, in order to be entitled to mandamus relief relator must establish: (1) he
lacks an adequate legal remedy; and (2) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial. In
re Reed, 137 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) (citing State ex
rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). “‘[A]n
act is ‘ministerial’ if it does not involve the exercise of any discretion.’” Id. (quoting State ex rel.
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-5048, styled State of Texas v. Alberto Miguel Lopez, in the 175th
Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Roman presiding.
04-11-00538-CR
Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 67 S.W.3d 177, 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). “It is
generally within the discretion of the trial court whether or not trial counsel should be allowed to
withdraw from a case.” Brewer v. State, 649 S.W.2d 628, 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); See also
Tuffiash v. State, 948 S.W.2d 873, 878 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, writ ref’d). Because the
trial court’s ruling on the motion to withdraw as counsel was a discretionary matter, mandamus
relief is not available. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-