Opinion
NO. 01-21-00244-CRNO. 01-21-00245-CR
05-25-2021
IN RE SEAN DOMINIC GIPSON, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Sean Dominic Gipson, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, requesting that this Court "issue an order compelling [the trial court] to bring [relator] to court" and "issue a writ of mandamus compelling [the trial court] to dismiss with prejudice all mentioned causes."
The underlying cases are The State of Texas v. Sean Dominic Gipson, Cause Nos. 1606344 and 1606345, in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Hazel B. Jones presiding. --------
We dismiss relator's petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Relator filed his petition for writ of mandamus pro se; however, a review of the record establishes that in the underlying cases, the trial court 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. See Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, 116 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (because habeas applicant was represented by counsel, court would disregard and take no action on pro se filings); Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Therefore, "a trial court's decision not to rule on a pro se motion" is not "subject to review." Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922.
Moreover, because relator has court-appointed counsel, 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). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider relator's pro se petition for writ of mandamus.
In the alternative, assuming we had jurisdiction, we would deny relator's mandamus petition for failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. It is relator's burden to provide this Court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). Rule 52 sets out the requirements for the form and contents of a petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Relator's petition does not comply with the requirements of rule 52. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7.
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 Kelly, Guerra, and Farris. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).