in Re Roger Soliz, Jr. ( 2009 )

i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-09-00168-CR
IN RE Roger SOLIZ, JR.
Original Mandamus Proceeding1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2009
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On March 20, 2009, relator Roger Soliz, Jr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions, all relating to the criminal
proceeding for which he is currently confined. However, counsel has been appointed to represent
relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. 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). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro
se motions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by
… This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2009-CR- 0755B, 2009-CR-0756B, and 2009-CR-0757B styled
1
State v. Roger Soliz, pending in the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Roman
presiding.
04-09-00168-CR
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 various pro se motions that all relate directly to his 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).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-