IN RE: Mark Martinez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 28, 2009
• Docket: 04-09-00638-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00638-CR

IN RE Mark MARTINEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding ⁽¹⁾

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 28, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On October 7, 2009, relator Mark Martinez 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 by declining to rule on relator's various pro se motions that relate directly to his confinement based on 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).

Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. Tex. R. App. P. 52. Therefore, relator's motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot.

DO NOT PUBLISH

1. This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-7316B, styled State of Texas v. Mark A. Martinez, in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.