in Re Christopher Crumedy, Relator

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00872-CR

IN RE Christopher CRUMEDY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 23, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On December 31, 2012, Relator Christopher Crumedy filed a petition for writ of

mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion for speedy trial.

However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in

the trial court for which he is currently confined. 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). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on

pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is

represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motion filed in the criminal

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012-CR-0263, styled State of Texas v. Christopher Crumedy, pending in the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary D. Roman presiding. 04-12-00872-CR

proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-