in Re: Daniel Guidry

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 24, 2006
• Docket: 13-06-00173-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                             NUMBER 13-06-173-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________

                              IN RE DANIEL GUIDRY                                      

__________________________________________________________________

                      On Petition for Writ of Mandamus __________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Castillo

                            Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion^[1]

Relator, Daniel Guidry, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on April 17, 2006.  The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator, who is represented by appellate counsel in Guidry v. State, No. 13-05-00469-CR (Corpus Christi filed June 10, 2005), has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.  See Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Lockhart v. State, 847 S.W.2d 568, 569 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)) (providing that an appellant does not have a right to hybrid representation).  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 24th day of April, 2006.

---

^[1] See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) (AWhen denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.@); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).