Opinion
NO. 01-21-00037-CR NO. 01-21-00038-CR
02-02-2021
IN RE ANDREW PRESTON SHANNON, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Andrew P. Shannon, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asserting that the "trial court has abused its discretion by denying relator's requests for bond reductions [and] ankle monitor deferral fees."
The underlying cases are The State of Texas v. Andrew Preston Shannon, Cause Nos. 17-DCR-079922 and 18-DCR-084489, in the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, the Honorable Frank J. Fraley presiding.
We dismiss relator's petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Even if this Court had jurisdiction to consider relator's petition for writ of mandamus, we would not grant the relief requested by relator. In his petition, relator states that he has taken part in five bond hearings. The mandamus record includes two applications for writ of habeas corpus and a "Motion to Reconsider Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and New Addendum." Each of these documents was filed pro se by relator; however, the mandamus record does not include any evidence of filing, such as a file stamp, or that they were presented to the trial court for consideration. Relator's mandamus petition further states that in the five bond hearings, the trial court denied his requested relief. Yet, the mandamus record does not include any order, or other evidence of the trial court's determination on any such request by relator. Accordingly, because the record does not include any evidence that the filings at issue in relator's mandamus proceeding were filed or otherwise presented to the trial court for consideration, relator would not be entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requiring "certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of"); see also In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding) (relator bears burden to "illustrate that the district court received and was aware of" pleadings at issue).
Relator has filed his petition for writ of mandamus pro se. However, a review of the record establishes that in the underlying case, the trial court has entered an "Order Appointing Counsel," providing relator with court-appointed counsel.
Criminal defendants are not entitled to hybrid representation in the same case and a "trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel." Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). As such, "a trial court's decision not to rule on a pro se motion" is not "subject to review." Id. Similarly, relator is not entitled to hybrid representation before this Court, and relator's pro se petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for this Court to review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (because appellant was represented by counsel and was not entitled to hybrid representation, appellant's pro se supplemental brief presented nothing for review); Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (orig. proceeding) (overruling pro se motion for leave to file mandamus petition because relator was represented by appointed trial counsel and not entitled to hybrid representation).
Accordingly, we dismiss relator's petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Guerra. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).