in Re Tristan Griffin ( 2009 )

i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-09-00688-CR
IN RE Tristan GRIFFIN
Original Mandamus Proceeding1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 11, 2009
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On October 23, 2009, relator Tristan Griffin filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which
he (1) complains he has filed several pro se motions that have not been acted upon, and (2) requests
that he be given an examining trial.
However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending
in the trial court for which he is currently confined.2 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.
1
… This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-7887, styled State of Texas v. Tristan Griffin, in the 379th
Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
2
… On June 9, 2009, the trial court appointed attorney Frederick Deyeso to represent relator in the criminal
proceeding pending in the trial court.
04-09-00688-CR
State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on a pro
se motion 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 motion that relates directly to his confinement based on the
criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus
is denied. TEX . R. APP . P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-