In re Shawn BeanAppeal from 437th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00544-CR IN RE Shawn BEAN Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 4, 2013 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On August 12, 2013, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court s failure to rule on various pro se motions pending in his criminal proceeding. This court issued an opinion on August 21, 2013 denying relator s mandamus petition on the basis that a criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation, meaning the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator s pro se motions when relator is represented by appointed counsel. 2 On August 26, 2013, relator filed a supplemental petition for writ of mandamus in this court complaining of the district clerk s failure to respond or take action with 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 188088, styled The State of Texas v. Shawn Bean, pending in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding. 2 In re Shawn Bean, No. 04-13-00544-CR, 2013 WL 4501334 (Tex. App. San Antonio Aug. 21, 2013, orig. proceeding). 04-13-00544-CR respect to relator s filing of an affidavit of indigency. For the following reasons, we dismiss relator s supplemental petition for writ of mandamus due to a lack of jurisdiction. In the supplemental petition for writ of mandamus, relator requests an order directing the district clerk to dispose of relator s pauper s oath. However, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. By statute, this court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 2004). In this instance, we conclude the requested writ is not necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, relator s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.