MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00203-CR
IN RE Jesse RAMIREZ
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 6, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On March 18, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial
court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions and petitions. 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 on relator’s pro se motions and petitions filed in the criminal proceeding
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-8528A, styled State of Texas v. Jesse Ramirez, pending in the
144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angus K. McGinty presiding.
04-11-00203-CR
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DO NOT PUBLISH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-