in Re Timothy Allen Peterson

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00170-CR

IN RE Timothy Allen PETERSON

Original Mandamus Proceeding[1]

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Karen Angelini, Justice

                     Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

                     Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed:  March 16, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

           On March 2, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on 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 pro se motions or petitions 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 pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court.  Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.  Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

DO NOT PUBLISH

---

[1] This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-9744, styled State of Texas v. Timothy Allen Peterson, pending in the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner presiding.