Opinion
09-22-00229-CR
08-24-2022
IN RE RODERIC DEMOND JAMES
Do Not Publish
Submitted on August 23, 2022
Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21-38216
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Roderic Demond James seeks to compel the trial court to rule on motions, which he filed in the trial court pro se. When the trial court failed to do so, James filed a petition for mandamus in this Court, also pro se. In his petition, James states that an attorney is representing him in the court below.
James' petition is procedurally defective. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. Additionally, he failed to certify that he served a copy of the petition on the Respondent and on the State, which is the real party in interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We will look beyond these deficiencies under Rule 2, however, in order to expedite the result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
To be entitled to relief on a writ of mandamus, the relator must demonstrate (1) there is no adequate remedy at law, and (2) there is a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. "[W]hen a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of considering and resolving it is ministerial." Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134-35 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Yet a trial court has no duty to consider and rule upon a defendant's pro se motions when the defendant is represented by counsel since defendants in criminal cases are not entitled to hybrid representation.
See State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ("[A] trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel.").
For these reasons, James' petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
PETITION DENIED.