AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed June 4, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01140-CR

MANUEL JOSEPH CORTEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1230535-T

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, O'Neill, and FitzGerald 

Opinion by Justice Moseley

Manuel Joseph Cortez was indicted for driving while intoxicated. He entered an open 

plea of guilty and pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph. The trial court accepted the open 

plea and sentenced Cortez to twelve years’ incarceration. In a single issue, Cortez argues the 

State improperly filed a notice that it intended to submit an enhancement paragraph to the jury. 

The background of the case and the evidence adduced below are well known to the parties; thus, 

we do not recite them here. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this 

memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The indictment alleged that Cortez unlawfully operated a motor vehicle while 

intoxicated, and that Cortez had two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated. After the 

indictment was filed, the State filed a “Notice of the State’s Special Plea of Enhancement 

Paragraphs,” which notified Cortez that the State intended to submit an enhancement paragraph 
–2–

to the jury. The certificate of service on the notice states that a copy was “emailed to the 

defendant’s attorney of record” and provided the name of Cortez’s attorney. Cortez then filed a 

pro se motion to quash the enhancement paragraph. The record does not show that the trial court 

ruled on Cortez’s motion. 

On appeal, Cortez argues the State’s notice of enhancement to the indictment was a 

nullity because the State failed to obtain leave from the trial court to amend the indictment. See 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 28.11 (West 2006). In response, the State argues Cortez failed 

to preserve his objection. We agree.

To preserve an issue for appellate review, the record must show the complaining party 

made a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds for the ruling sought and that 

the trial court ruled on the request, objection or motion either implicitly or expressly or the trial 

court refused to rule on the request, objection, or motion, and the complaining party objected to 

the refusal. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Although Cortez filed a pro se motion to quash the 

enhancement paragraph, he never obtained a ruling from the trial court on that motion. 

Therefore, he did not preserve the issue for review.

Additionally, when Cortez filed his pro se motion, he was represented by counsel. In 

Texas, there is no right to hybrid representation. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2007). The trial court’s decision not to rule on a pro se motion filed when the 

defendant is represented by counsel is not subject to review. Id. Because Cortez was 

represented by counsel and the trial court did not rule on his motion, there is nothing for us to 

consider on appeal. 
–3–

We overrule Cortez’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

131140F.U05

/Jim Moseley/

JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE
–4–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MANUEL JOSEPH CORTEZ, Appellant

No. 05-13-01140-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1230535-T.

Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley. 

Justices O'Neill and FitzGerald participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 4th day of June, 2014.

/Jim Moseley/

JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE