In Re Joseph Thomas Roberts v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Opinion issued May 2, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00252-CR
———————————
IN RE JOSEPH THOMAS ROBERTS, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 25, 2024, the Court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed
by relator, Joseph Thomas Roberts, because relator failed to comply with the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.1 In his petition, relator asserted that he “ha[d] been
1
See In re Roberts, No. 01-23-00970-CR, 2024 WL 269534, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 24, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for
publication).
detained beyond the statutory minimum sentencing guidelines” in violation of the
“fast and speedy trial” rules.2
On April 1, 2024, relator, incarcerated and acting pro se, filed the instant
petition for writ of mandamus, seeking “emergency” relief on the same grounds.3
Relator requested that the Court “waive” the compliance requirement of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure because he is a “layman at legal litigation and law,”
without access to the courts or the law library. But “[t]hat relator is an inmate acting
pro se does not relieve him from the duty to comply with the rules of procedure.” In
re Foster, 503 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig.
proceeding). “Pro se litigants must comply with the applicable procedural rules, and
we hold them to the same standards that apply to licensed attorneys.” Williams v.
Bayview–Realty Assocs., 420 S.W.3d 358, 362 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2014, no pet.); see also Holz v. United States of Am. Corp., No. 05-13-01241-CV,
2014 WL 6555024, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 23, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(pro se litigant must adhere to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure).
2
See id. (internal quotations omitted).
3
The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Joseph Thomas Roberts, Cause No.
23-CR-3584, in the 405th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the Honorable
Jared S. Robinson presiding.
2
We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). All pending motions are
dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3