Gray v. Shipley

198 Citing cases

  1. Imade Osarinmwian Anthony v. State

    CIVIL ACTION NO. H-08-0904 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2008)

    See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Absent a right to hybrid representation, it is questionable whether Anthony's pro se submissions could be deemed adequate to exhaust state court remedies even if he were to file a motion or mandamus application in the proper court.

  2. In re Darnall

    No. 01-24-00365-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 2, 2024)

    ("Because [relator] is represented by counsel in the trial court, he is not entitled to relief on his pro se petition for writ of mandamus.") (citing Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (orig. proceeding)

  3. In re Pete

    No. 01-24-00148-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 14, 2024)

    Similarly, a relator is not entitled to hybrid representation before this Court, and as such, a 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, 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 deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

  4. In re Medina

    No. 04-23-00646-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 19, 2023)

    The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator's pro se mandamus petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court's review. See id.; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

  5. In re Molina

    No. 04-23-00422-CR (Tex. App. May. 10, 2023)

    be treated as presenting nothing for this court's review. See id.; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

  6. In re Badyrka

    No. 01-23-00235-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 20, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Badyrka's pro se petition for writ of mandamus thus presents nothing for our Court to review because a criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. 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); see also In re De La O, No. 04-16-00826-CR, 2017 WL 95925, at *1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Jan. 11, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op, not designated for publication)

  7. Ex parte Payne

    No. 04-22-00880-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 15, 2023)

    See id.; seealso Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

  8. In re Hendricks

    No. 04-22-00819-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 25, 2023)

    Because relator is represented by trial counsel below, his pro se mandamus petition presented nothing for this court to review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding).

  9. Ex parte Payne

    No. 04-23-00010-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 11, 2023)

    See id.; seealso Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

  10. In re Tyler

    No. 04-22-00818-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 5, 2023)

    Because relator is represented by trial counsel below, his pro se mandamus petition presented nothing for this court to review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we denied relator's petition for writ of mandamus on December 14, 2022.