in Re Emanuel Harrison

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 30, 2022
• Docket: 10-22-00371-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-22-00371-CR

IN RE EMANUEL HARRISON

Original Proceeding

From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 30202

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Emanuel Harrison, acting pro se, has presented a Petition for Writ of Mandamus,

which was filed on November 10, 2022.

There are procedural problems with this petition, such as no service on the trial

court judge, as the respondent, and no service on the State, as the real-party-in-interest,

no certification, no record, and no certified or sworn-to copy of any document showing

the matter complained of as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.5, 52.3(j), (k)(1)(A), and 52.7. However, to expedite this decision, we use Rule 2

to suspend the operation of these rules. TEX. R. APP. P. 2.

In his petition, Harrison complains that the trial court has not ruled on two pro se motions filed in his underlying criminal proceeding. However, Harrison also indicates

that he is represented by counsel who, according to Harrison, will not present Harrison’s

motions to the trial court for him.

A defendant in a criminal proceeding is not entitled to hybrid representation. See

Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). As long as Harrison is

represented by counsel, the trial court has no duty to rule on a pro se motion absent

extraordinary circumstances not presented here. See id.

Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed on November 10, 2022, is

denied.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed November 30, 2022 Do not publish [OT06]

In re Harrison Page 2