Opinion
No. 04-06-00194-CV
Delivered and Filed: April 19, 2006.
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2005-CR-4454, styled State of Texas v. Michael Jefferson, pending in the 399th District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner presiding.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied.
Sitting: Catherine STONE, Justice, Karen ANGELINI, Justice, Rebecca SIMMONS, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 28, 2006, Michael Jefferson filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court's failure to rule on his pre-trial motions in the underlying criminal proceeding. A trial court has a legal, non-discretionary duty to consider and rule on properly filed motions within a reasonable time. In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). However, to be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator has the burden of providing a record that establishes the filing of the motions, the trial court's awareness of the motions, and the trial court's refusal or failure to act within a reasonable period of time. In re Fox, 141 S.W.3d 795, 797-98 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); Tex.R.App.P. 52.3(j); 52.7(a). The mandamus record before us fails to establish that Jefferson's motions were in fact filed and have awaited disposition by the trial court for an unreasonable time.
Additionally, Jefferson represents in his petition that counsel has been appointed to represent him in the underlying criminal proceeding. A criminal defendant is not entitled to "hybrid" representation — partially pro se and partially by counsel. Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Because Jefferson is represented by counsel in the trial court, he is not entitled to relief on his pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Accordingly, Jefferson's petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex.R.App.P. 52.8(a).