In re Guidry

Full title: IN RE DANIEL GUIDRY

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi

Date published: Apr 24, 2006

No. 13-06-173-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 24, 2006)

Opinion

No. 13-06-173-CR

Opinion Delivered and April 24, 2006.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Before Chief Justice VALDEZ and Justices RODRIGUEZ and CASTILLO.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM[fn1] [fn1] See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

Relator, Daniel Guidry, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on April 17, 2006. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator, who is represented by appellate counsel in Guidry v. State, No. 13-05-00469-CR (Corpus Christi filed June 10, 2005), has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. See Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (citing Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995); Lockhart v. State, 847 S.W.2d 568, 569 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)) (providing that an appellant does not have a right to hybrid representation). Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).