in Re Edler Gilstrap
This text of in Re Edler Gilstrap (in Re Edler Gilstrap) 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
i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00527-CR
IN RE Edler GILSTRAP
Original Mandamus Proceeding1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 6, 2008
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On July 22, 2008, relator Edler Gilstrap filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to
compel the trial court to rule on his pro se Motion for Speedy Trial or to dismiss with prejudice the
underlying criminal case. We conclude trial counsel is also relator’s counsel for an original
proceeding on the issue presented. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v.
State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation
means relator’s pro se petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See id.;
see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig.
proceeding). Accordingly, relator’s petition is denied.
DO NOT PUBLISH
1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2007-CR-3647 and 2008-CR-5359, styled The State of Texas v. Edler Gilstrap, in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, the Honorable Bert Richardson presiding.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Edler Gilstrap, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-edler-gilstrap-texapp-2008.