in Re David Earl Stanley

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re David Earl Stanley

DecidedSeptember 25, 2014

Docket09-14-00378-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in Re David Earl Stanley (in Re David Earl Stanley) 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.

Bluebook

in Re David Earl Stanley, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-14-00378-CV ____________________

IN RE DAVID EARL STANLEY

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding ________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

David Earl Stanley filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus to

compel the Judge of the 258th District Court to rule on motions that Stanley filed

in a forfeiture proceeding. Stanley states that he filed the motions pro se while

represented by counsel. “[A] trial court is under no mandatory duty to accept or

consider pleadings filed pro se by a party who is represented by counsel.” In re

Sondley, 990 S.W.2d 361, 362 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding); see

also Tex. R. Civ. P. 7. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 24, 2014 Opinion Delivered September 25, 2014

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

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