In re Curley Jefferson Appeal from 276th District Court of Marion County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-17-00156-CR IN RE CURLEY JEFFERSON Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Curley Jefferson, who is represented by appointed counsel in the underlying appeal from his conviction of possession of a controlled substance, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, complaining that the district clerk has not provided him with a copy of the record so that he can represent himself on appeal. We deny Jefferson’s petition because (1) an attorney has been appointed to represent him on direct appeal1 and (2) we do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless such writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004). Because an attorney has been appointed to represent Jefferson on appeal, we treat Jefferson’s pro se mandamus petition as presenting nothing for this Court’s review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). We, therefore, deny Jefferson’s petition for a writ of mandamus.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: August 10, 2017 August 11, 2017 Do Not Publish 1 Jefferson does not have a right to hybrid representation. See Marshall v. State, 210 S.W.3d 618, 620 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (court refused to address appellant’s pro se brief because appellant had no right to hybrid representation); Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (“Appellants are not allowed to have ‘hybrid representation’ on appeal, in which an appellant and an attorney can present independent points to an appellate court.”). 2 Jefferson also indicates that he wishes to represent himself in his direct appeal based on a perceived conflict of interest of his appointed counsel. This complaint is the subject of a motion filed by Jefferson in his direct appeal, our cause number 06-17-00126-CR, and will be addressed in that matter. 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.
