In Re Kenneth Chambless v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Kenneth Chambless v. the State of Texas (In Re Kenneth Chambless v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-25-00527-CR __________________
IN RE KENNETH CHAMBLESS
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 24-04-05352 & 24-04-05529 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Kenneth Chambless asks this Court to
direct the trial court either to sever the trial of his two offenses and grant a speedy
trial or dismiss the charges. Chambless concedes that he raised the complaints in
motions he filed pro se and that he is currently represented by counsel in the trial
court. Chambless argues the trial court should have granted Chambless leave to file
pro se motions because his cases are “very unique” when compared to other cases
with issues of insanity and competency to stand trial, in that Chambless offered to
relinquish certain rights if his cases went to trial within 60 days.
1 To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that he
has no adequate remedy at law and what he seeks to compel is ministerial, involving
no discretion. In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)
(orig. proceeding). Criminal defendants are generally not entitled to hybrid
representation, and “a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by
a defendant who is represented by counsel.” Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). After reviewing the mandamus petition and the additional
materials Chambless submitted with the petition, we conclude Chambless has not
shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for
a writ of mandamus. Any pending motions addressed to this Court are denied as
moot.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 27, 2026 Opinion Delivered January 28, 2026 Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Kenneth Chambless v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kenneth-chambless-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp9-2026.