Court Opinion

ID: 2736739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-09-25 07:06:49.772736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:20.870142
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                             NO. 09-14-00378-CV
                           ____________________

                       IN RE DAVID EARL STANLEY

_______________________________________________________              ______________

                              Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________              _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      David Earl Stanley filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus to

compel the Judge of the 258th District Court to rule on motions that Stanley filed

in a forfeiture proceeding. Stanley states that he filed the motions pro se while

represented by counsel. “[A] trial court is under no mandatory duty to accept or

consider pleadings filed pro se by a party who is represented by counsel.” In re

Sondley, 990 S.W.2d 361, 362 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding); see

also Tex. R. Civ. P. 7. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        1
 
 
 

                                                 PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 24, 2014
Opinion Delivered September 25, 2014

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

                                       2