i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00763-CR
IN RE Eugene SULLIVAN
Original Mandamus Proceeding1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 12, 2008
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On October 15, 2008, relator Eugene Sullivan filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various motions. Counsel has been appointed to
represent relator in the trial court. We conclude that relator’s appointed counsel in the trial court is
also his counsel for an original proceeding on the issue presented.
To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must establish: (1) the act sought
to be compelled is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature, and (2) there is no adequate remedy
at law. Deleon v. District Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Respondent has no
ministerial duty to rule on relator’s pro se motion because relator is represented by appointed counsel
1
… This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-8073, styled State of Texas v. Eugene Sullivan, pending
in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid J. Harle presiding.
04-08-00763-CR
and 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). Consequently, the
respondent did not violate a ministerial duty by declining to rule on relator’s motion. Therefore, this
court has determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, relator’s petition
for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX . R. APP . P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-