IN RE: Donald Adkins (2015)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Donald Adkins, who is presently incarcerated, filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial court has deprived him of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.   He further relates that he has filed a number of motions in the trial court pertaining to his right to a speedy trial, but the motions have been ignored.¹  Relator seeks an order from this court directing the trial court to proceed to trial on Relator's outstanding criminal charges.

In an original proceeding, the relator is required to file an appendix as part of his petition and also a record.   See Tex.R.App. P. 52.3(k), 52.7.   The contents of both are prescribed by the rules of appellate procedure.   See Tex.R.App. P. 52.3(k)(1), 52.7(a).   Here, Relator did not provide an appendix and a record and asserts that he has no documents in his possession.   Nevertheless, without an appendix and a record, we are unable to determine that Relator is entitled to mandamus relief.   Accordingly, we deny Relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Relator states in his mandamus petition that he received notice of the pending charges in 2011 and asked his attorney to file certain motions.   We cannot determine from Relator's mandamus petition whether he is presently represented by counsel.   We note, however, that Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation.   See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex.Crim.App.2007).   Consequently, “a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel.”  Id.

PER CURIAM