in Re Dante Tyrone Rushing
This text of in Re Dante Tyrone Rushing (in Re Dante Tyrone Rushing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00389-CR __________________
IN RE DANTE TYRONE RUSHING
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 253rd District Court of Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 34000, 34001, 34002 & CR31430 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Dante Tyrone Rushing complains that
the trial court has failed to rule on motions that Rushing filed pro se in criminal
cases. Rushing indicates that he is represented by counsel in the proceedings
currently before the trial court. “A defendant has no right 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) (citations omitted). Relator failed to establish that
the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for a
writ of mandamus.
1 PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on December 28, 2021 Opinion Delivered December 29, 2021 Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Dante Tyrone Rushing, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dante-tyrone-rushing-texapp-2021.