in Re Matthew Jamal Jackson ( 2015 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00370-CR
IN RE Matthew Jamal JACKSON
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 8, 2015
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On June 18, 2015, relator Matthew Jamal Jackson filed a pro se petition for writ of
mandamus complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions Jackson asserts
he has mailed to the court in the underlying criminal proceeding. However, trial counsel has been
appointed to represent Jackson with respect to the pending criminal charges 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. App. 1995) (en banc). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions
filed in a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240
S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, to the extent that the trial court has failed or refused to rule on any
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014CR0148, styled The State of Texas v. Matthew Jamal Jackson, pending
in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ronald Rangel presiding.
04-15-00370-CR
pro se motions filed in the underlying proceeding, such conduct does not constitute an abuse of
the trial court’s discretion. Id. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.8(a).
Additionally, relator filed an application for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus.
No leave is required to file a petition for 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DO NOT PUBLISH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-