In Re Joseph Thomas Roberts v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued May 2, 2024

In The Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00252-CR ——————————— IN RE JOSEPH THOMAS ROBERTS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 25, 2024, the Court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by relator, Joseph Thomas Roberts, because relator failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.1 In his petition, relator asserted that he “ha[d] been

1 See In re Roberts, No. 01-23-00970-CR, 2024 WL 269534, at *1 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 24, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

detained beyond the statutory minimum sentencing guidelines” in violation of the “fast and speedy trial” rules.2

On April 1, 2024, relator, incarcerated and acting pro se, filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus, seeking “emergency” relief on the same grounds.3 Relator requested that the Court “waive” the compliance requirement of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because he is a “layman at legal litigation and law,” without access to the courts or the law library. But “[t]hat relator is an inmate acting pro se does not relieve him from the duty to comply with the rules of procedure.” In re Foster, 503 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding). “Pro se litigants must comply with the applicable procedural rules, and we hold them to the same standards that apply to licensed attorneys.” Williams v. Bayview–Realty Assocs., 420 S.W.3d 358, 362 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.); see also Holz v. United States of Am. Corp., No. 05-13-01241-CV, 2014 WL 6555024, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 23, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (pro se litigant must adhere to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure).

2 See id. (internal quotations omitted). 3 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Joseph Thomas Roberts, Cause No. 23-CR-3584, in the 405th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the Honorable Jared S. Robinson presiding.

We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).