In Re Clayton Tuttle Brothers v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 13, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00842-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 13, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00840-CR NO. 01-25-00841-CR NO. 01-25-00842-CR NO. 01-25-00843-CR ——————————— IN RE CLAYTON TUTTLE BROTHERS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Clayton Tuttle Brothers, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ

of mandamus related to his four underlying trial court causes. Relator’s mandamus

petition requests that the Court stay all proceedings in each of the underlying trial

court causes and issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to “[a]ppoint or

allow substitution of competent, conflict-free counsel,” to “[c]onduct a full evidentiary hearing on destruction and suppression of evidence,” to “[e]nsure all

hearings are electronically recorded and transcribed,” and to “[r]efrain from

retaliatory conduct against [r]elator for asserting constitutional rights.” Relator’s

petition further requests that the Court “[d]irect the presiding judge and the Harris

County District Attorney’s Office to preserve all records and communications

relating to [r]elator and the underlying proceedings” and to “[c]onsider [r]elator’s

[f]ilings, [e]xhibits and [t]estimony as a whistleblower.”1

Relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for our Court

to review because a criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation.

Relator’s mandamus petition notes that he has court appointed counsel. As such, his

mandamus petition must be denied. See In re Rodriguez, No. 08-03-00499-CR, 2004

WL 516698, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Mar. 17, 2004, orig. proceeding) (not

designated for publication) (“Because [relator] is represented by counsel in the trial

court, he is not entitled to relief on his pro se petition for writ of mandamus.” (citing

Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig.

proceeding) (overruling pro se motion for leave to file mandamus petition because

relator was represented by appointed trial counsel and not entitled to hybrid

representation))).

1 The underlying cases are The State of Texas v. Clayton Tuttle Brothers, cause numbers 1487636, 1487637, 1487638, and 1487639, pending in the 177th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Emily DeToto presiding.

2 We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.7(a), 52.8(a); see also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). We

dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Gunn, and Caughey.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).