in Re Jonathan Perkins A/K/A Sedrick Perkins

Opinion

Opinion issued November 22, 2011.

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-11-00892-CR

NO. 01-11-00929-CR

———————————

In re JONATHAN perkins, a/k/a sedrick perkins, Relator

Original Proceedings on Petitions for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          In two petitions for writ of mandamus, relator, Jonathan Perkins, a/k/a Sedrick Perkins, challenges the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion for hybrid representation.[1]  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).  Further, the law does not require a trial court to rule on pro se motions filed in a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel.  See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922.  A trial court thus does not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on a defendant’s pro se motion for hybrid representation.

          We deny the petitions for writ of mandamus. 

                                                PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

Do not publish.   Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

[1]           The underlying cases are The State of Texas v. Jonathan Perkins, No. 131708201010 and The State of Texas v. Jonathan Germaine Perkins, 131685401010, both in the 339th District Court, Harris County, the Honorable Maria T. Jackson presiding.