Opinion
No. 04-09-00524-CR
Delivered and Filed: August 31, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Original Mandamus Proceeding. Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied.
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-4310, styled State v. Robert Clay, pending in the 175thJudicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Roman presiding.
Sitting: KAREN ANGELINI, Justice, SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice, REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 21, 2009, relator Robert Clay filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining the trial court has failed to rule on his pro se motions. However, relator fails to specify what motions he is referring to. 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 discretion by declining to rule on relator's pro se motions that relate directly to his confinement based on the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Therefore, we conclude that relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator's motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot.