Ex parte S.M.S.--Appeal from 211th District Court of Denton County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 02-10-00240-CV

Case Date: 12/23/2010

Preview:i

i

i

i

i

i

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-09-00138-CR IN RE Lawrence WOODARD Original Mandamus Proceeding1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis Speedlin, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 18, 2009 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On March 5, 2009, relator Lawrence Woodard filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court's failure to rule on his pro se pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the trial court. Relator alleges that in his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus he complains that he was never brought before the magistrate with regard to the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is currently confined. However, relator has been appointed counsel to represent him 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.

... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-4356, styled State v. Lawrence Woodard, pending in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl presiding.
1

04-08-00138-CR

Crim. App. 1995); Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). 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 petition for writ of habeas corpus that relates directly to his confinement based on the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Therefore, we conclude that relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition 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 a 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH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-

Download 21958.pdf