in Re Robert Ray Carl

Opinion

Opinion issued June 19, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Brown, and Caughey.

Do not publish.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

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-18-00502-CR ——————————— IN RE ROBERT RAY CARL, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Robert Ray Carl, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent district judge to dismiss his case or release him on a personal recognizance bond in the underlying criminal proceeding.1 In light of relator stating in his petition that he is represented by trial counsel below, his pro se mandamus petition presents nothing for this 1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Robert Carl, Cause No. 1567696, 174th District Court, Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Hazel B. Jones presiding.