In re Elender Louisa Armour Appeal from 339th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed August 1, 2023. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-23-00496-CR IN RE ELENDER LOUISA ARMOUR, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 339th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1584279 MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 17, 2023, relator Elender Louisa Armour, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Teiva Bell, presiding judge of the 339th District Court of Harris County, to “follow all the laws regarding the referral of cases and a timely filed Objection to an Associate Judge and cause her case to be placed on her docket in a public courtroom with a court reporter and electronic recording to preserve the record for appeal and to protect the Relator’s rights from being infringed.” A review of the appendix attached to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus establishes that in the underlying case, the trial court has entered an “Order Appointing Counsel,” representing that relator is indigent and providing her with court-appointed counsel. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation also means that a relator’s pro se mandamus petition should be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. Id.; see also In re Greer, 14–22–00672–CR, 2023 WL 4361248, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 6, 2023, orig. proceeding). Relator has not established that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Hassan, and Wilson. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 2
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.
