TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00578-CR
Ex parte Robert Joseph Yezak
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF BELL COUNTY
NO. MR2C2000748, THE HONORABLE REBECCA DEPEW, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Joseph Yezak has filed a pro se notice of appeal seeking appellate review
of his application for writ of habeas corpus filed in the trial court. Although a hearing on
Yezak’s application has been scheduled, the trial court has not yet addressed the merits of his
application or conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding the application. “No appeal lies from
the refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus unless the trial court rules on the merits of the
application.” Ex parte Young, 257 S.W.3d 276, 277 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, no pet.); see
Ex parte Ratliff, No. 03-04-00040-CR, 2004 WL 1686636, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 29,
2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction
over this appeal. See Ex parte Young, 257 S.W.3d at 277.
Yezak attached various filings to his notice of appeal asserting that the trial court
has not ruled on his application for writ of habeas corpus. To the extent that Yezak is seeking
mandamus relief from this Court, we would be unable to grant relief. In his filings, Yezak notes
that he is represented by appointed counsel in the proceedings below. A defendant has no right
to “hybrid representation.” See Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
To the extent that Yezak’s filings can be construed as a pro se mandamus petition, the absence of
a right to hybrid representation means that this Court cannot act on his petition. See Gray v.
Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding).
For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
__________________________________________
Thomas J. Baker, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: October 21, 2022
Do Not Publish
2