Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

January 18, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NOS. 14-17-01002-CR and 14-17-01003-CR

IN RE RAMON TORRES, Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 208th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1541830 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On December 12, 2017, relator Ramon Torres filed with this court three 

documents entitled “Emergency Writ for Exigi Facias and Mandamus”, “Writ for 

Exigi Facias and Mandamus”, and “Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support 

of Appeal to Dismissal of Writ of Mandamus on Motion to Dismiss Indictment.” In 
2 

these documents, relator ask this court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the 

Honorable Denise Collins, presiding judge of the 208th District Court of Harris 

County, to: (1) dismiss relator’s indictment, and (2) release to relator the evidence 

requested in relator’s Motion for Discovery of Evidence, that he allegedly filed with 

the trial court on November 11, 2017. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West

Supp. 2017); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.

“A party’s right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for 

some action and a refusal of that request.” In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 

1999) (orig. proceeding); see also In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 814–15 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). Relator has the burden to include a record 

sufficient to prove a right to relief, including any motions filed that indicate the trial 

court was apprised of his motions and did not rule in a reasonable time. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a); In re Ussery, No. 01-17-00477-CR, 2017 WL 4820173, at 

*1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 26, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op). 

“Presenting the motion, along with a request for a hearing, is required to let the court 

know that the defendant wants the trial court to act on the motion and whether the 

defendant would like a hearing on the motion.” Rozell v. State, 176 S.W.3d 228, 230 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The trial court is not required to consider a motion that has 

not been called to its attention by proper means. In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381 (Tex. 

App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). The record must show both that 

the motion was filed and the trial court has not ruled on the motion within a 

reasonable time after being requested to do so. See In re Foster, 503 S.W.3d 606, 

607 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
3 

Relator is not entitled to mandamus relief because he has not provided a record 

showing that he requested the trial court to grant the relief he seeks in the documents 

that he has filed with this court, and that the trial court refused such relief. Relator 

has not provided this court with any mandamus record, much less one that shows

that he filed his alleged Motion for Discovery of Evidence and requested the trial 

court to rule on that motion.

Additionally, in previous mandamus proceedings filed with this court, relator 

has indicated that he is represented by counsel in this matter.1

 Because relator is 

represented by counsel below, his pro se mandamus petitions present nothing for this 

court’s review because a criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. 

See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. 

State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid 

representation means that a relator’s pro se mandamus petition should be treated as 

presenting nothing for this court’s review. See Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 

(Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). 

For these reasons, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Jewell. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 

 

1 See In re Torres, No. 14-17-00968-CR, 2017 WL 6552102, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] Dec. 21, 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) and In re Torres, No. 14-17-00940-CR, 

2017 WL 6329659, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 12, 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) 

(mem. op.).