Court Opinion

ID: 3128966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 16:13:04.359969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:39.590321
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                            No. 04-11-00063-CR

                                       IN RE Kenneth MITCHELL

                                     Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
                  Rebecca Simmons, Justice
                  Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

           On January 26, 2011, relator Kenneth Mitchell filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his 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 on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal

1
 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-12264, styled State of Texas v. Kenneth Mitchell, pending in the
226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.
                                                                                  04-11-00063-CR

proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

       Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of

Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R.

APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot.

                                                           PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                              -2-