Court Opinion

ID: 2923388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 03:30:11.344694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:54.036985
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-06-173-CR
 
                         COURT OF APPEALS
 
               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
__________________________________________________________________
 
                              IN RE DANIEL
GUIDRY                                      
__________________________________________________________________
 
                      On Petition for Writ of
Mandamus __________________________________________________________________
 
                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
        Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez
and Castillo
                            Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion[1]
 

Relator, Daniel
Guidry, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in
the above cause on April 17, 2006.  The Court, having examined and fully
considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion
that relator, who is represented by appellate counsel in Guidry v. State,
No. 13-05-00469-CR (Corpus Christi filed June 10, 2005), has not shown himself
entitled to the relief sought.  See
Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)
(citing Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Lockhart
v. State, 847 S.W.2d 568, 569 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)) (providing that
an appellant does not have a right to hybrid representation).  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
 
Memorandum Opinion delivered and 
filed this 24th day of April, 2006.
 

[1]
See
Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) (AWhen
denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
so.@); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing
opinions and memorandum opinions).