In Re: Donald Adkins Appeal from 273rd District Court of Sabine County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-15-00135-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § DONALD ADKINS, § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM 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. Opinion delivered June 3, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 1 Relator states in his mandamus petition that he received notice of the pending charges in 2011 and asked his attorney to file certain motions.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. COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JUNE 3, 2015 NO. 12-15-00135-CR DONALD ADKINS, Relator V. HON. CHARLES R. MITCHELL, Respondent ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by DONALD ADKINS, on May 21, 2015, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that a writ of mandamus should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby DENIED. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
