Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00760-CR
IN RE Robert MARTINEZ
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 13, 2013
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On October 30, 2013, relator Robert Martinez filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus
complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on pro se motions for speedy trial pending in his
underlying criminal cases. However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal
proceedings 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
represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2013CR6698; 2013CR4545; 2013CR4546; 2013CR4547, each styled The
State of Texas v. Robert Martinez, pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable
Maria Teresa Herr presiding.
04-13-00760-CR
abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motions filed in the pending criminal
proceedings. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
Additionally, relator requested leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus. No leave is
required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator’s
request for leave to file is denied as moot.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-