in Re Eddie Lundy, Relator

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 20, 2010
• Docket: 04-10-00718-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00718-CR

IN RE Eddie LUNDY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 20, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On October 8, 2010, relator Forest Holmes filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motions. However, counsel has been

appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is

currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson

v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498

(Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions

filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See

Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-0566, styled State of Texas v. Eddie Lundy, pending in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori Valenzuela presiding. 04-10-00718-CR

declining to rule on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial

court. Accordingly, the petition is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-