in Re Roderic Demond James

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 24, 2022
• Docket: 09-22-00229-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00229-CR __________________

IN RE RODERIC DEMOND JAMES

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21-38216 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roderic Demond James seeks to compel the trial court to rule on

motions, which he filed in the trial court pro se. 1 When the trial court

failed to do so, James filed a petition for mandamus in this Court, also

1James’ petition is procedurally defective. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. Additionally, he failed to certify that he served a copy of the petition on the Respondent and on the State, which is the real party in interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We will look beyond these deficiencies under Rule 2, however, in order to expedite the result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2. 1 pro se. In his petition, James states that an attorney is representing him

in the court below.

To be entitled to relief on a writ of mandamus, the relator must

demonstrate (1) there is no adequate remedy at law, and (2) there is a

clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. 2 “[W]hen a motion is

properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of considering and

resolving it is ministerial.” Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134-35 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Yet a trial court has no duty to

consider and rule upon a defendant’s pro se motions when the defendant

is represented by counsel since defendants in criminal cases are not

entitled to hybrid representation. 3

For these reasons, James’ petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 23, 2022 Opinion Delivered August 24, 2022 Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

2See State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). 3See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“[A] trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel.”). 2