i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-09-00524-CR
IN RE Robert CLAY
Original Mandamus Proceeding1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 31, 2009
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On August 21, 2009, relator Robert Clay filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining
the trial court has failed to rule on his pro se motions. However, relator fails to specify what motions
he is referring to.
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
… This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-4310, styled State v. Robert Clay, pending in the 175th
1
Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Roman presiding.
04-09-00524-CR
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 that relate directly to his
confinement based on the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Therefore, we conclude
that relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition is denied.
TEX . R. APP . P. 52.8(a).
Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
No leave is required to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. TEX . R. APP . P. 52.
Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-