Opinion
No. 04-09-00159-CR
Delivered and Filed: March 25, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH
Original Mandamus Proceeding Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied.
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-6258, styled State v. Averin A. Woodard, pending in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.
Sitting: CATHERINE STONE, Chief Justice, PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justice, MARIALYN BARNARD, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 16, 2009, relator Averin A. Woodard filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator complains of the trial court's failure to rule on various pro se motions and a pro se pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus, all relating to the criminal proceeding for which he is currently confined. However, relator has been appointed counsel to represent him in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. 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); Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding that the defendant is represented by counsel in. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator's various pro se motions and pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus that all relate directly to his criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Therefore, we conclude that relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition is denied. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).