Opinion
No. 04-09-00168-CR
Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Original Mandamus Proceeding. Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied.
This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2009-CR-0755B, 2009-CR-0756B, and 2009-CR-0757B styled State v. Roger Soliz, pending in the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Roman presiding.
Sitting: KAREN ANGELINI, Justice, REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice, STEVEN C. HILBIG, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 20, 2009, relator Roger Soliz, Jr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court's failure to rule on various pro se motions, all relating to the criminal proceeding for which he is currently confined. However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. 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 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 various pro se motions that all relate directly to his 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).