in Re Thomas Florence ( 2012 )

Opinion issued May 17, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals

For the

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-12-00254-CR

____________

IN RE THOMAS WAYNE FLORENCE, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Thomas Wayne Florence, complains that the trial court, which appointed appellate counsel for him, denied him “his statutory right to present and argue his own pro se motions for new trial,” and he complains that this Court has erroneously refused to accept his pro se filings.^[1]

A criminal defendant has no right to hybrid representation.  Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Thomas v. State, 312 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d) (“[A] criminal defendant currently represented by counsel is not entitled to hybrid representation.”). Consequently, “a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel.”  Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922.  Thus, because relator had appointed appellate counsel, the trial court was free to disregard relator’s pro se motion for new trial.  We conclude that the trial court has not abused its discretion by refusing to consider relator’s motion for new trial.

Moreover, we note that relator has failed to file in this Court an appendix or record containing his motion for new trial.  SeeTex. R. App. P. 52.3(k) (stating that appendix to petition for writ of mandamus must include “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of”); Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring relator to include, in record filed with petition for writ of mandamus, “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”).  Relator also failed to certify that he has reviewed the petition and concluded that “every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.”  Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j).

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.

Do Not Publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

¹        The Honorable Lonnie Cox, Judge of the 56th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, Respondent. The underlying lawsuit is State v. Florence, No. 10CR1217 (56th Dist. Ct., Galveston Cnty., Tex.).