in Re Spurgeon Williams

i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-09-00258-CR IN RE Spurgeon WILLIAMS Original Mandamus Proceeding1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 20, 2009 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On May 6, 2009, relator Spurgeon Williams filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion for discharge and delay. 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 filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by … This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-8936, styled State v. Spurgeon Williams, pending in the 1 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding. 04-09-00258-CR 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 motion for discharge and delay. Therefore, we conclude that relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-