in Re James Earl Taylor, Relator

Opinion

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00397-CR

IN RE James Earl TAYLOR

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 9, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On May 21, 2010, relator James Earl Taylor filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his various 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 a pro

se motion 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

1 … This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009CR8900, styled State of Texas v. James Earl Taylor, in the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Román presiding. 04-10-00397-CR

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

the trial court. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX . R. APP . P.

52.8(a).

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-