in Re Mark Sullivan
Opinion
|
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH |
NO. 02-12-00377-CV
|
In re Mark Sullivan |
RELATOR |
------------
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. The relator complains that the respondent trial court has failed to hold a hearing on his pro se application for writ of habeas corpus bond reduction, but the trial court clerk has no record of relator filing a habeas application in the 271st District Court of Wise County. Even assuming relator filed a habeas application in the district court, the trial court had no duty to rule on the petition because relator was represented by counsel at that time.[2] See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DELIVERED: September 24, 2012
[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
[2]This would not apply, however, to any future pro se petitions or motions because relator is no longer represented by counsel.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
in Re Mark Sullivan (in Re Mark Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.