ADAM KELLY WARD-Movant v. THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. BEACOM, Judge, 354th Judicial District Court of Hunt County (other)

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion     Close This Window

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-70,651-01

ADAM KELLY WARD, Relator-Movant

v.

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. BEACOM,

Judge, 354th Judicial District Court of Hunt County, Respondent

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FROM CAUSE NO. 23,182 IN THE 354TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HUNT COUNTY

Per Curiam.

O R D E R

In June 2007, a jury found relator guilty of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set relator's punishment at death. Relator's direct appeal is currently pending in this Court. Ward v. State, No. AP-75,750.

Currently before us is relator's motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. In the motion, relator asserts that the attorney appointed to represent him on direct appeal was not on the approved list of attorneys qualified to represent appellants on direct appeal, which list is maintained by the First Administrative Judicial Region as required by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 26.052. Moreover, counsel was not on the list either at the time he was appointed or at the time he filed relator's brief on direct appeal. Therefore, relator asserts, the original appointment order is null and void, and the trial court is under a ministerial duty to appoint counsel from the approved list.

On October 1, 2008, in response to relator's motion, we stayed the direct appeal proceedings in the case and gave the respondent an opportunity to respond to the mandamus petition. Ward v. The Hon. Richard A. Beacom, No. WR-70,651-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 1, 2008)(not designated for publication). Just prior to our issuing the order staying the direct appeal proceedings, relator's habeas counsel, relator's (allegedly unqualified) direct appeal counsel, and the State's counsel all filed an agreed motion to "disqualify" Peter Morgan as relator's direct appeal counsel because he was not qualified to accept the appointment per the dictates of Article 26.052. Because of our ruling on that motion, we deny relator leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus. See Ward v. State, No. AP-75,750 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 19, 2008)(not designated for publication).

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008.

Do Not Publish