in Re Patricio Estrada

Opinion

Opinion issued July 31, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

appointed trial counsel in the underlying criminal proceeding.1 With the petition, relator has also filed a motion for leave to file the petition.

In light of relator stating in his petition that he is represented by appointed trial counsel below, his pro se mandamus petition presents nothing for this Court’s review because a criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (because appellant was represented by counsel and was not entitled to hybrid representation, pro se appellant’s supplemental brief presented nothing for review); Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (per curiam) (overruling pro se motion for leave to file mandamus petition because relator was represented by appointed trial counsel and was not entitled to hybrid representation).

Accordingly, we dismiss the mandamus petition for want of jurisdiction and dismiss the motion for leave as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Brown, and Caughey.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Patricio Estrada, Cause No. 17-DCR-

77572, 268th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas, the Honorable Brady G.

Elliott presiding.

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-18-00620-CR ——————————— IN RE PATRICIO ESTRADA, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Patricio Estrada, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent district judge to recuse himself, to assign his case to a different trial court, and to replace his