MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00288-CR
IN RE Stephen RICHARDSON
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 11, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On April 19, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial
court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions. 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 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
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-10629, styled State of Texas v. Stephen Richardson, pending in
the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner presiding.
04-11-00288-CR
on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court.
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 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DO NOT PUBLISH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-