in Re: Lloyd Murray

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 12, 2006
• Docket: 12-06-00114-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                NO. 12-06-00114-CV

NO. 12-06-00115-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§         

IN RE: LLOYD MURRAY,  §          ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            On April 7, 2006, Lloyd Murray filed these petitions for a writ of mandamus, complaining that Respondent, the Honorable Kerry S. Russell, Judge of the 7th Judicial District Court in Smith County, failed to rule on his pretrial motions in the underlying criminal proceedings. 

            To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must establish that (1) the act sought to be compelled is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law.  Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).  Here, Respondent appointed counsel to represent Murray in the trial court.  Murray filed his pretrial motions pro se after counsel was appointed.  Murray is not entitled to hybrid representation—partially pro se and partially by counsel.  See Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).  Because counsel was appointed for Murray, Respondent was entitled to look solely to the attorney and was not required to consider Murray’s pro se motions.  See Busselman v. State, 713 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.).  Therefore, Respondent did not violate a ministerial duty by declining to rule on the motions. 

            Because Respondent did not violate a ministerial duty, Murray is not entitled to the relief he seeks.  Accordingly, the petitions for writ of mandamus are  denied.  Murray’s motion to stay

the trial court proceedings is overruled as moot.

                                                                                                     JAMES T. WORTHEN   

                                                                                                                 Chief Justice

Opinion delivered April 12, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)