The opinion
Opinion issued October 11, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00745-CR
———————————
IN RE THOMAS FLORENCE, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Thomas Florence, petitioned for writ of mandamus complaining of
the letter sent to him by this Court on July 31, 2012, regarding his pending appeal
in cause number 01-11-00822-CR.1 In this letter, the Clerk of this Court informed
1
The underlying case is State of Texas v. Thomas Wayne Florence, No. 10CR1217,
(56th Dist. Ct., Galveston Cnty., Tex.), the Honorable Lonnie Cox, presiding,
which has been appealed to this Court in cause number 01-11-00822-CR and is
still pending.
Florence, in acknowledgment of his “communication received July 6, 2012, with
reference to [his] direct appeal,” that his appeal “[h]as been filed but has not yet
been decided,” that his case “is currently abated to the trial court,” and that,
because he is still represented by court-appointed appellate counsel, he is not
entitled to “hybrid representation.”
Florence’s petition requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus against
itself. A court of appeals has authority to issue writs of mandamus against district
and county-court judges within the court of appeals’ district and all writs necessary
to enforce its jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004).
There is no statutory authority allowing for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus
against itself, and Florence makes no effort to identify how the issuance of the writ
would be necessary for this Court to enforce its jurisdiction.
Furthermore, Florence’s petition for writ of mandamus does not comply with
the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3 (requiring, among other things, that petition include complete list of all
parties, statement of case, and statement regarding basis of this Court’s exercise of
jurisdiction).
We also observe that any complaints regarding Florence’s right to hybrid
representation or right to proceed pro se on appeal are now moot, as this Court
issued an order on August 17, 2012 in cause number 01-11-00822-CR reinstating
2
the appeal, recognizing the trial court’s finding that Florence may proceed in this
appeal pro se, and setting a briefing schedule.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Any pending
motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3