in Re Larry Montoya Cantu, Relator

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00917-CR IN RE Larry Montoya CANTU Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 2, 2011 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On December 23, 2010, relator Larry Montoya Cantu filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator asserts he filed a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court in which he complains he has never been “personally magistrated.” To the extent relator seeks a writ from this court ordering that relator be released, the writ is denied. To the extent relator’s complaint is that the trial court has failed to rule on his writ of habeas corpus, 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. 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-9404, styled State of Texas v. Larry Montoya Cantu, pending in the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Melissa Skinner presiding. However, at the time the petition was filed, the Honorable Sharon Macrae was the presiding judge of the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. 04-10-00917-CR 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 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). PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-