IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15-00103-CR
IN RE PATRICK KIRK PITZER
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Patrick Kirk Pitzer, filed this pro se petition for writ of mandamus on
March 26, 2015, complaining about the Brazos County District Clerk’s failure to
“transmit” relator’s “MOTION TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS AND TRIAL RECORDS IN
FORMA PAUPERIS” to the trial court for consideration. Relator has been appointed
both trial and appellate counsel to represent him in connection with the pending
criminal charges. In fact, relator’s appellate counsel has filed an appellate brief
challenging relator’s conviction for arson.
We conclude that any original proceeding on the issue raised should be
presented by relator’s counsel. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See
Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (en banc); see also In re Fisk,
No. 04-15-00139-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2778, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 25,
2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam, not designated for publication); In re
Porter, No. 14-15-00014-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 333, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] Jan. 15, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam, not designated for
publication). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se
mandamus petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this Court’s review. See
Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 498; Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); see also In re Fisk, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2778, at **1-2; In re
Porter, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 333, at *1. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
(Chief Justice Gray concurring with a note)*
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed April 16, 2015
[OT06]
*(Chief Justice Gray concurs that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied.
A separate opinion or order will not issue.)
In re Pitzer Page 2
In re Pitzer Page 3