Opinion
No. 04-12-00118-CR
03-14-2012
IN RE Thomas E. THAMES, Jr.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Original Mandamus Proceeding
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-4181, styled State of Texas v. Thomas E. Thames, pending in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding.
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On February 22, 2012, relator Thomas Edward Thames, Jr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court's failure to rule on his various pro se motions. 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 motions 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).
PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH