MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00573-CR
IN RE Christopher CRUMEDY
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 19, 2012
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
Relator Christopher Crumedy was charged with the offense of manufacturing and
delivery of a controlled substance, less than one gram, alleged to have occurred on January 26,
2011. Crumedy was subsequently arrested and confined at the Bexar County Adult Detention
Center. Bail was set at $50,000.00 on this cause and a second bond of $20,000.00 was set on
Crumedy’s companion case. On October 30, 2012, the trial court determined Crumedy was
indigent and appointed counsel. On December 1, 2011, Crumedy filed a pro se motion for bond
reduction with the trial court. Crumedy contends that at three difference court appearances,
November 18, 2011, March 17, 2012, and July 30, 2012, he requested his trial counsel file a
bond reduction motion. Even further, Crumedy argues he prepared the motion for his counsel to
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011CR2844, styled State of Texas v. Christopher Crumedy, pending in
the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary D. Roman presiding.
04-12-00573-CR
present to the trial court. On July 30, 2012, Crumedy appeared before the trial court represented
by counsel. Although Crumedy had previously filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking to dismiss
his trial counsel, Crumedy agreed to drop the writ and proceed with the trial date.
On August 1, 2012, Crumedy alleges he was returned to the courthouse, where his trial
counsel participated in a hearing without his consent or presence. On September 6, 2012,
Crumedy filed a petition for writ of mandamus contending the trial court’s failure or refusal to
grant his application for bond reduction is irreparably impairing and prejudicing his ability to
present a reasonable defense to the charges against him.
As noted, counsel was appointed to represent Crumedy 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 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 Crumedy’s pro se motion filed in the
criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. 2
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
2
We note that the trial court’s records appear to reflect that Crumedy’s current bond on this cause was reduced from
$50,000.00 to $30,000.00.
-2-