In Re Clayton Tuttle Brothers v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In Re Clayton Tuttle Brothers v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 13, 2025·No. 01-25-00842-CR·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 13, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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.

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 Do not publish.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).

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

Opinion issued October 13, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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.

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).

In Re Clayton Tuttle Brothers v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

In Re Clayton Tuttle Brothers v. the State of Texas (In Re Clayton Tuttle Brothers v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related