Opinion
No. 04-11-00064-CR
Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Original Mandamus Proceeding. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-7940, styled State of Texas v. Ernest Hastings, pending in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori Valenzuela presiding.
Sitting: KAREN ANGELINI, Justice, PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justice, STEVEN C. HILBIG, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 26, 2011, relator Ernest Hastings filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court's failure to rule on his pro se "Motion to Quash Indictment and Illegal Arrest." However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator's pro se motion filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).