Court Opinion

ID: 5142414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-12-31 08:13:51.964369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:36.926116
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-21-00389-CR
                               __________________

                      IN RE DANTE TYRONE RUSHING

__________________________________________________________________

                          Original Proceeding
             253rd District Court of Liberty County, Texas
            Trial Cause Nos. 34000, 34001, 34002 & CR31430
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Dante Tyrone Rushing complains that

the trial court has failed to rule on motions that Rushing filed pro se in criminal

cases. Rushing indicates that he is represented by counsel in the proceedings

currently before the trial court. “A defendant has no right to hybrid representation,

and, as a consequence, a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented

by a defendant who is represented by counsel.” Jenkins v. State, 592 S.W.3d 894,

902 n.47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (citations omitted). Relator failed to establish that

the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for a

writ of mandamus.

                                          1
      PETITION DENIED.

                                               PER CURIAM

Submitted on December 28, 2021
Opinion Delivered December 29, 2021
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                       2