Summary
denying mandamus on ground that pro se relator not entitled to hybrid representation
Summary of this case from In re RamosOpinion
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