From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Riley

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Mar 24, 2011
No. 02-11-00052-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 24, 2011)

Opinion

No. 02-11-00052-CV

Delivered: March 24, 2011.

Original Proceeding.

PANEL: GABRIEL, DAUPHINOT, and MEIER, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


On February 7, 2011, Relator Steven Riley filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the respondent had not ruled on certain motions. Relator has retained counsel to represent him in the trial court. We conclude that retained counsel for Relator in the trial court is also his counsel for an original proceeding because the issues presented arise as a direct result of the pending criminal charges. Relator 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), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1106 (1996). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means Relator's pro se petition for writ of mandamus will be treated as presenting nothing for this court's consideration. See Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 498; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Consequently, this court has determined that Relator's pro se petition should be disregarded. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922; In re West, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 07-09-0279-CV, 2009 WL 2618130, at *1 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Aug. 26, 2009, orig. proceeding).


Summaries of

In re Riley

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Mar 24, 2011
No. 02-11-00052-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 24, 2011)
Case details for

In re Riley

Case Details

Full title:IN RE STEVEN RILEY, RELATOR

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

Date published: Mar 24, 2011

Citations

No. 02-11-00052-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 24, 2011)

Citing Cases

In re Luttrell

Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed. See Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, 116…

In re D.B.

This court has determined that Mother's pro se motions should be disregarded. See In re Riley, No.…