In Re Darren Tramell Huges v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 9, 2024
• Docket: 14-24-00116-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April 9, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00116-CR NO. 14-24-00117-CR

IN RE DARREN TRAMELL HUGES, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20-DCR-090968 & 20-DCR-090974

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 15, 2024, relator Darren Tramell Hughes filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Surendran K. Pattel to “to issue written rulings on all relator’s motions and to grant said motions. . .”1

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 petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for this Court’s review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 425 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher, Justices Zimmerer and Wilson. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

1 Relator states that the motions are a motion to reinstate his bond, a motion to suppress, and a motion to dismiss.