in Re Jesse Finney
This text of in Re Jesse Finney (in Re Jesse Finney) 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
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 26, 2008
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
In a pro se mandamus petition, Jesse Finney asks us to compel the trial court to rule on several pretrial motions in his criminal case. Counsel has been appointed to represent Finney in the trial court. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). We conclude that trial counsel is also Finney's counsel for any original proceeding on the issue presented. See id.; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, Finney's petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court's consideration. See Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 498. The petition is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
DO NOT PUBLISH
1. This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CR-4226, styled The State of Texas v. Jesse Finney, pending in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, 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 Jesse Finney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jesse-finney-texapp-2008.