In Re Steven J. Stringfellow v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00048-CR
__________________

IN RE STEVEN J. STRINGFELLOW

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
County Court at Law No. 4 of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 24-388312 and 24-388313
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Steven J. Stringfellow complains that

the trial court has not appointed counsel to represent Stringfellow in two

misdemeanor criminal cases. 1 He asks the appellate court to compel the trial court

1Stringfellow failed to certify that the factual recitations in his petition are

supported by competent evidence in the mandamus record, and that he served a copy
of the petition and mandamus record on the Respondent and the counsel of record
for the Real Party in Interest in Trial Cause Numbers 24-388312 and 24-
288313. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, 52.3(j). Additionally, the documents attached to
his petition are not properly certified. See id. 52.7. We use Rule 2, however, to look
beyond these and additional deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See id. 2.
1
to appoint counsel for Stringfellow in Trial Cause Numbers 24-388312 and 24-

288313. We deny mandamus relief.

Attachments to Stringfellow’s mandamus petition indicate that (1) on October

1, 2024, in connection with a bail determination in his criminal cases Stringfellow

executed an Affidavit of Financial Condition that indicated he is single with no

dependents, receives no public assistance, is self-employed, and has a monthly

household income of $2,000, (2) on October 24, 2024, Stringfellow filed a Motion

for Appointment of Counsel in Trial Court Case Number 388312, (3) on November

26, 2024, an Appointment Designee for the County Court at Law Number 4 issued

a Certificate of Ineligibility based on both assets and income in connection with Trial

Cause Numbers 24-388312 and 24-288313, and (4) on November 27, 2024, the

Director of the Office of Indigent Defense for Montgomery County, Texas emailed

a copy of the Local Rules governing appointment of counsel to an email address

associated with Stringfellow. 2

2See Local Rules of Montgomery County for the Timely and Fair
Appointment of Counsel for Indigent Defendants in Misdemeanor Criminal Cases
in the Statutory County Courts at Law (2002, amended November 12, 2024) (“Local
Rules”) (defining “Net Household Income” as “gross income minus those
deductions required by law or as a condition of employment, including net self-
employment income (gross income minus business expenses, and those deductions
required by law or as a condition of operating the business)” … “regular payments
from a governmental income maintenance program” … and “regular payments from
Social Security.”
2
Stringfellow has failed to show that he filed with the trial court evidence that

established that his net income does not exceed 125 percent of the Poverty

Guidelines as established annually by the United States Department of Health and

Human Services. 3 Furthermore, Stringfellow has not shown that he sought a

determination of indigence based on his inability to retain private counsel under the

alternative criteria for establishing indigence pursuant to the Local Rules.

Additionally, Stringfellow has failed to establish that the trial court abused its

discretion by relying on the Appointment Designee’s determination of ineligibility,

and that he brought his inability to retain counsel to the attention of the trial court.

In a criminal case, to establish a right to mandamus relief a relator must show

that no adequate remedy at law exists to redress the alleged harm and that he is

seeking to compel a ministerial act, one that does not involve a discretionary or

judicial decision. See In re State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Appeals at

Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). The

relator must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought under unequivocal,

well-settled and clearly controlling principles. Id.

We have reviewed the mandamus petition and appendix. We conclude that

Stringfellow has failed to establish that he has a clear right to the relief he seeks. See

3See Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 89 Fed. Reg. 2962 (Jan.

17, 2024) (setting an annual income of $15,060 as the poverty threshold for a
household of one in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia).
3
id. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 25, 2025
Opinion Delivered February 26, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

4