Court Opinion

ID: 3128419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 16:01:52.050715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:02.329421
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                           No. 04-11-00221-CR

                                       IN RE Eliodoro MUNGUIA

                                     Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
                  Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
                  Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 13, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

           On March 25, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial

court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions. However, counsel has been appointed to

represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is currently

confined. 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). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with

regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson,
240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule

1
 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-9179, styled State of Texas v. Eliodoro Munguia, pending in the
437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding.
                                                                                     04-11-00221-CR

on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

                                                           PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                              -2-