Opinion
No. 04-08-00484-CR
Delivered and Filed: July 23, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH.
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CR-8706, styled The State of Texas v. Martin A. Casarez, pending in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle, presiding.
Sitting: ALMA L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, CATHERINE STONE, Justice, STEVEN C. HILBIG, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original mandamus proceeding, relator Martin A. Casarez has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule on and grant his pro se request for a speedy trial in the underlying criminal matter. Counsel has been appointed to represent Casarez in the trial court cause. To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must establish the act sought to be compelled is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature, and there is no other adequate remedy at law. Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). Although a trial court has the discretion to permit hybrid representation, it is not required to do so. See Scarbrough v. State, 777 S.W.2d 83, 92 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989); Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272, 280 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977). It is well-established that a defendant in a criminal matter does not have a right to hybrid representation. Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). Accordingly, the act Casarez seeks to compel is discretionary, not ministerial, in nature and we therefore deny the pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).