Deny and Opinion Filed April 28, 2015
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00514-CV
IN RE ROBERT PAYNE WATSON, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 397th Judicial District Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 062770
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Francis
Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial
court to rule on his motions to quash the indictment, to compel discovery and to remove his
counsel of record from the case. The State responded to the petition and provided the Court
copies of orders signed by the trial court granting a motion to withdraw from the case filed by
relator’s counsel and appointing new counsel for relator. Thus, to the degree the petition seeks to
compel the trial court to rule on relator’s motion to remove his counsel from the case, because
the trial court has ruled on the motion, the petition is moot. See Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909
S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995)
With respect to relator’s motions to quash the indictment and to compel discovery, which
he states he filed “as a layperson,” the trial court is not obligated to rule on relator’s pro se
motions filed while relator was represented by counsel. A criminal defendant has no right to
hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (en
banc); Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Relator has been
represented by counsel in this case at all relevant times. Therefore, the trial court has no legal
duty to rule on the pro se motions. In re Aitch, No. 01-03-01185-CR, 2003 WL 22862682, at *1
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 4, 2003, orig. proceeding.).
We DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.
150514F.P05 /Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
–2–