From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Tucker

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
May 23, 2018
No. 08-18-00078-CR (Tex. App. May. 23, 2018)

Opinion

No. 08-18-00078-CR

05-23-2018

IN RE: LAWRENCE JOSEPH TUCKER, Relator.


AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Lawrence Joseph Tucker, has filed a pro se mandamus petition against the Honorable Patrick Garcia, Judge of the 384th District Court of El Paso County, Texas. Relator asks that we order Respondent to address an issue of jurisdiction before the jury trial currently scheduled for June 8, 2018. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Relator refers to two cases in his mandamus petition, cause numbers 20160D05635 and 20170D00234.

A party seeking a writ of mandamus in a criminal case must make two showings: (1) that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm; and (2) that the act the relator seeks to compel must be ministerial rather than discretionary in nature. See e.g. Board of Pardons and Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (orig. proceeding); In re State, 304 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2010, orig. proceeding). Relator is represented in the cases below by the El Paso County Public Defender. Alleging that his attorney has refused to request a hearing on a jurisdictional issue, Relator asks that the trial court be ordered to conduct the hearing. Relator has not established that he has filed any motions raising a jurisdictional issue, or that the trial court is aware of and has refused to rule on his motions. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). To the extent Relator is complaining about the trial court's failure to act on a pro se motion, he is not entitled to mandamus relief because he is represented by counsel. A defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation and a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). For these reasons, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice May 23, 2018 Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ. (Do Not Publish)


Summaries of

In re Tucker

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
May 23, 2018
No. 08-18-00078-CR (Tex. App. May. 23, 2018)
Case details for

In re Tucker

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: LAWRENCE JOSEPH TUCKER, Relator.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Date published: May 23, 2018

Citations

No. 08-18-00078-CR (Tex. App. May. 23, 2018)