in Re Travis Foy
This text of in Re Travis Foy (in Re Travis Foy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-21-00638-CV
In re Travis Foy
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Travis Foy has filed a letter with the court, which we construe as a
petition for writ of mandamus based on the substance of the filing. See Surgitek, Bristol-Myers
Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (courts look to substance of pleading rather than
its form or caption to determine its nature). Foy complains of the trial court's failure to rule on
numerous pro se motions pending before the district court. Foy is represented by trial counsel,
however, and “a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who
is represented by counsel.” Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Foy is not entitled to mandamus relief because the trial court has not violated any ministerial
duty by failing to act on those pro se filings. See In re State ex rel. Tharp, 393 S.W.3d 751, 754
(Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App.
P. 52.8(a). __________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith
Filed: December 15, 2021
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Travis Foy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-travis-foy-texapp-2021.