Opinion
No. 01-03-01192-CR
Opinion issued December 11, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Panel consists of Justices HEDGES, ALCALA, and HANKS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Samuel R. Walker, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus asking that we direct respondent to rule on various pro se motions that he filed in cause number 943669. Respondent is the Honorable Mark Kent Ellis, the elected judge of the 351st District Court of Harris County. A writ of mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy at law. Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding). Relator is represented by appointed counsel in the trial court and is not entitled to hybrid representation. Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex.Crim. App. 1981). Therefore, the trial court had no duty to rule on the pro se motions, and was within the proper exercise of its discretion in declining to do so. As we read relator's petition, his primary concern is his right to a speedy trial. The question of whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated is directly appealable after conviction, however. See Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (Tex.Crim. App. 2002) (conviction reversed on speedy trial grounds). In Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 592-93 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied mandamus relief, holding that the relator had an adequate remedy at law on his speedy trial claims. The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore denied.