in Re Daniel Hoskins

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 29, 2022
• Docket: 14-22-00120-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed March 29, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00117-CR NO. 14-22-00118-CR NO. 14-22-00119-CR NO. 14-22-00120-CR NO. 14-22-00121-CR

IN RE DANIEL HOSKINS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 178th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1618216, 1628507, 1628513, 1628514 & 1705847

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 24, 2022, relator Daniel Hoskins filed petitions for writs of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petitions, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Kelli Johnson, presiding judge of the 178th District Court of Harris County, to hold a hearing and grant his motion for discovery and inspection of evidence.

Relator is represented by counsel. A defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation, and, as a consequence, a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel. Jenkins v. State, 592 S.W.3d 894, 902 n.47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). Moreover, in the absence of a right to hybrid representation, relator’s pro se petitions for writs of mandamus present nothing for this court’s review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.3d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 425 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Relator has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petitions for writs of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Spain. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).