In Re: George W. Fulco v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re: George W. Fulco v. the State of Texas (In Re: George W. Fulco v. the State of Texas) 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
DENIED and Opinion Filed October 17, 2024
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-01197-CR
IN RE GEORGE W. FULCO Original Proceeding from the 15th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-08957
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel Before the Court is relator’s October 10, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.
Relator is charged with an offense in Grayson County that is set in the 15th District
Court. Relator asks this Court to compel the 15th District Court to rule on pretrial
motions he claims he filed in the court. We deny relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus.
Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure in numerous respects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1; TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–
(k); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Thus, relator’s petition does not meet the
requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of
mandamus relief. See In re Guillaume, No. 05-24-00765-CV, 2024 WL 3548511, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 26, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying
mandamus relief based on relator’s failure to comply with several Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure).
Additionally, relator is represented by counsel in the underlying criminal
proceeding. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. 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). The issue relator raises in his pro se petition for
writ of mandamus relates directly to the criminal proceeding in which he is
represented by counsel. Therefore, because relator is not entitled to hybrid
representation, he has presented nothing for this Court’s consideration. See Patrick,
906 S.W.2d at 498.
We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
241197f.u05 /Emily Miskel/ Do Not Publish EMILY MISKEL TEX. R. APP. P. 47 JUSTICE
–2–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re: George W. Fulco v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-george-w-fulco-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.