in Re Steven Riley ( 2011 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00052-CV
IN RE STEVEN RILEY RELATOR
----------
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
On February 7, 2011, Relator Steven Riley filed a petition for writ of
mandamus, complaining that the respondent had not ruled on certain motions.
Relator has retained counsel to represent him in the trial court. We conclude that
retained counsel for Relator in the trial court is also his counsel for an original
proceeding because the issues presented arise as a direct result of the pending
criminal charges. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson
v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1106 (1996).
The absence of a right to hybrid representation means Relator’s pro se petition
for writ of mandamus will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s
consideration. See Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 498; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877
S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.––Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding).
Consequently, this court has determined that Relator’s pro se petition should be
disregarded. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at
922; In re West, --- S.W.3d ---, No. 07-09-0279-CV, 2009 WL 2618130, at *1
(Tex. App.––Amarillo Aug. 26, 2009, orig. proceeding).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, DAUPHINOT, and MEIER, JJ.
DELIVERED: March 24, 2011
2