Gray v. Shipley

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gray v. Shipley

877 S.W.2d 806, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 910, 1994 WL 170245

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 21, 1994·No. 01-94-00304-CV·Published·Cited by 147 cases

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Relator, Larry L. Gray, has filed a pro se motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus. He is charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance.

Relator seeks the writ of mandamus so that “the validity of a warrantless arrest with no probable cause justifying arrest be ruled upon to determine if further prosecution of relator may be continued.” Relator is represented by appointed counsel in the trial court. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).

Accordingly, we overrule relator’s motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Relator, Larry L. Gray, has filed a pro se motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus. He is charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance.

Relator seeks the writ of mandamus so that “the validity of a warrantless arrest with no probable cause justifying arrest be ruled upon to determine if further prosecution of relator may be continued.” Relator is represented by appointed counsel in the trial court. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).

Accordingly, we overrule relator’s motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus.

Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 910, 1994 WL 170245 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

877 S.W.2d 806 (Gray v. Shipley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related