Court Opinion

ID: 3127668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 15:47:09.162856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:46.200746
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                           No. 04-11-00472-CR

                                    IN RE Stephen RICHARDSON

                                     Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:         Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
                 Karen Angelini, Justice
                 Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 27, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

           On July 7, 2011, relator Stephen Richardson 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

1
  This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-10629, styled State of Texas v. Stephen Richardson, pending in
the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner presiding.
                                                                               04-11-00472-CR

discretion by declining to rule 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DO NOT PUBLISH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-