NO. 12-06-00292-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§         

IN RE: FERRELL SCOTT, JR.,     §          ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR

§         

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            In this original mandamus proceeding, Ferrell Scott, Jr. requests an order “directing the judge of the 241st judicial district court of Smith County, Texas to initiate process in relation to relator’s Motion for Forensic DNA testing pursuant to V.T.C.A. Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 64 . . . .”

            In a criminal case, mandamus relief is authorized only if the relator establishes that (1) he has no other adequate legal remedy and (2) under the facts and the law, the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial.  State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).  In the instant case, Scott has filed a request for DNA testing, and the trial court appointed an attorney for Scott after his request for DNA testing but prior to the date Scott filed his mandamus petition.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 64.01(c) (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 2006).  Scott is not entitled to hybrid representation–partially pro se and partially by counsel.  See Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).  Because counsel has been appointed for Scott, he must look solely to his counsel for representation.  Therefore, we do not consider Scott’s pro se mandamus petition.  Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

                                                                                                     SAM GRIFFITH   

                                                                                                              Justice

Opinion delivered August 25, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Griffith, J.

(PUBLISH)