Court Opinion

ID: 7803801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-26 07:11:04.581537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:29:43.507445
License: Public Domain

In The

                           Court of Appeals

             Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                           __________________

                           NO. 09-22-00229-CR
                            __________________

                 IN RE RODERIC DEMOND JAMES

__________________________________________________________________

                      Original Proceeding
      Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 21-38216
__________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Roderic Demond James seeks to compel the trial court to rule on

motions, which he filed in the trial court pro se. 1 When the trial court

failed to do so, James filed a petition for mandamus in this Court, also

     1James’ petition is  procedurally defective. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3.
Additionally, he failed to certify that he served a copy of the petition on
the Respondent and on the State, which is the real party in interest. See
Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We will look beyond these deficiencies under Rule 2,
however, in order to expedite the result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
                                     1
pro se. In his petition, James states that an attorney is representing him

in the court below.

     To be entitled to relief on a writ of mandamus, the relator must

demonstrate (1) there is no adequate remedy at law, and (2) there is a

clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. 2 “[W]hen a motion is

properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of considering and

resolving it is ministerial.” Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134-35 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Yet a trial court has no duty to

consider and rule upon a defendant’s pro se motions when the defendant

is represented by counsel since defendants in criminal cases are not

entitled to hybrid representation. 3

     For these reasons, James’ petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

     PETITION DENIED.

                                                   PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 23, 2022
Opinion Delivered August 24, 2022
Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

     2See   State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
     3See   Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)
(“[A] trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a
defendant who is represented by counsel.”).
                                      2