In re Cecil Max-George Appeal from 185th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed, in Part, and Denied, in Part, and Memorandum Opinion filed July 11, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00500-CR IN RE CECIL MAX-GEORGE, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 185th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1475788 MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 26, 2017, relator Cecil Max-George 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. Relator names the Honorable Susan Brown, presiding judge of the 185th District Court of Harris County, and her court reporter as the respondents. Relator asks this court to compel the respondents to provide him with the appellate record “for the purpose of perfecting his appeal.” We do not have jurisdiction over the court reporter in this original proceeding. Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to (1) writs against a “judge of a district or county court 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 court reporter 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 against the court reporter is necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the court reporter. Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief against the trial judge. 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). The trial judge denied relator’s request for access to the appellate record. Relator states that he desires a copy of the appellate record to perfect his appeal. Relator’s appeal from his conviction for assault of a public servant is pending in this court in cause number 14-16-00217-CR, and relator is represented by counsel. Because relator is not entitled to represent himself in his pending appeal while he is has legal representation, the trial court did not err by denying his motion for access to the appellate record. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction, in part, as to the court reporter, and deny the remainder of the petition. We further deny as moot relator’s motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. 2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Donovan, and Jewell. 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.
