In re Ronney Earl Williams Appeal from 232nd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied, in Part, and Dismissed, in Part, and Memorandum Opinion filed March 10, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00168-CR IN RE RONNEY EARL WILLIAMS, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1476283 MEMORANDUM OPINION On March 1, 2016, relator Ronney Earl Williams filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Harris County District Clerk and the presiding judge of the 232nd District Court of Harris County to file a response in his pretrial habeas corpus proceeding pending in the trial court.1 A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Relator states he raised the following claims in his petition for writ of habeas corpus: lack of probable cause, the State’s failure to be ready for trial, actual innocence, and illegal search and seizure. These claims relate directly to the underlying criminal proceeding in which he is represented by counsel. Therefore, relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief against the district judge. This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or a county court judge in the court of appeals’ district; and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. The district clerk is not a district court or county court judge in this court’s district, and relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief is necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk. 1 Relator filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. We construe relator’s filing as a petition for writ of mandamus. 2 Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, in part, as to the district judge and dismiss the petition, in part, as to the district clerk. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Donovan, and Brown. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 3
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.
