in Re Antonio Sepeda

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Antonio Sepeda

DecidedApril 6, 2010

Docket14-10-00258-CR

StatusPublished

This text of in Re Antonio Sepeda (in Re Antonio Sepeda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

in Re Antonio Sepeda, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April 6, 2010

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-10-00257-CR

NO. 14-10-00258-CR

NO. 14-10-00259-CR

In Re Antonio Sepeda, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 24, 2010, relator, Antonio Sepeda, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable C. G. Dibrell, III, presiding judge of County Court at Law No 2 of Galveston County, to “show cause why the petitioner continues to be detained, in direct violation of Texas statue [sic].”

Relator complains that he has been “awaiting since October 2009 on a trial by jury. Those demands for jury trial have been voiced and expressed to the state prosecutor and the trial court through myself and attorney.”

According to relator’s petition, he is represented by counsel in the underlying criminal proceeding. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. 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). The issues relator raises in his pro se petition for writ of mandamus relate directly to a criminal proceeding in which he is presented by counsel. Therefore, in the absence of a right to hybrid representation, relator has presented nothing for this Court’s consideration. See Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 498. .

Relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher.

Do Not Publish—Tex. R. App. P. 47.2.

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

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April 6, 2010

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-10-00257-CR

NO. 14-10-00258-CR

NO. 14-10-00259-CR

In Re Antonio Sepeda, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 24, 2010, relator, Antonio Sepeda, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable C. G. Dibrell, III, presiding judge of County Court at Law No 2 of Galveston County, to “show cause why the petitioner continues to be detained, in direct violation of Texas statue [sic].”

Relator complains that he has been “awaiting since October 2009 on a trial by jury. Those demands for jury trial have been voiced and expressed to the state prosecutor and the trial court through myself and attorney.”

According to relator’s petition, he is represented by counsel in the underlying criminal proceeding. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. 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). The issues relator raises in his pro se petition for writ of mandamus relate directly to a criminal proceeding in which he is presented by counsel. Therefore, in the absence of a right to hybrid representation, relator has presented nothing for this Court’s consideration. See Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 498. .

Relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher.

Do Not Publish—Tex. R. App. P. 47.2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in Re Antonio Sepeda, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-antonio-sepeda-texapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack