From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Burgess

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Nov 14, 2017
No. 05-17-01226-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 14, 2017)

Summary

denying mandamus on ground that pro se relator not entitled to hybrid representation

Summary of this case from In re Ramos

Opinion

No. 05-17-01226-CV

11-14-2017

IN RE NATHAN EARL BURGESS, Relator


Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2 Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 002-86625-2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Before the Court is relator's pro se petition for writ of mandamus. Relator is represented by counsel in the trial court and is not entitled to hybrid representation. See In re Jackson, No. 05-02-00106-CV, 2002 WL 172133, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 5, 2002, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying pro se petition for writ of mandamus where relator was represented by counsel in trial court); see also Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981) (person represented by counsel is not entitled to hybrid representation). Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

/s/Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE 171226F.P05


Summaries of

In re Burgess

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Nov 14, 2017
No. 05-17-01226-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 14, 2017)

denying mandamus on ground that pro se relator not entitled to hybrid representation

Summary of this case from In re Ramos
Case details for

In re Burgess

Case Details

Full title:IN RE NATHAN EARL BURGESS, Relator

Court:Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Date published: Nov 14, 2017

Citations

No. 05-17-01226-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 14, 2017)

Citing Cases

In re Ramos

Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App.…