In Re: John H. Hartsfield Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-16-00079-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § JOHN H. HARTSFIELD, § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM John Hartsfield requests a writ of mandamus compelling the Judge of the 241st Judicial District Court of Smith County to provide him a “free loaners copy” of the record in his criminal case (trial court cause number 241-2332-07). He alleges that he filed a motion for a “free loaner’s copy” of “trial transcripts reporter’s and appellate recorder’s,” but the trial court did not respond to the motion. Hartsfield’s mandamus petition is not accompanied by a record that includes certified or sworn copies of “every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Therefore, we cannot determine whether Hartsfield has a right to the relief he requests. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding) (holding that relator seeking mandamus relief must show no adequate remedy at law and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving discretionary or judicial decision). Accordingly, we deny Hartsfield’s petition for writ of mandamus. Opinion delivered March 23, 2016. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT MARCH 23, 2016 NO. 12-16-00079-CR JOHN H. HARTSFIELD, Relator v. HON. JACK SKEEN, JR., Respondent ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by JOHN H. HARTSFIELD, who is the relator in Cause No. 241-2332-07, pending on the docket of the 241st Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on March 23, 2016, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that a writ of mandamus should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby DENIED. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
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.
