in Re Leslie Joe Allen, Relator ( 2012 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00291-CR
IN RE Leslie Joe ALLEN, Relator
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 6, 2012
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On May 10, 2012, Relator Leslie Joe Allen filed in this court a document entitled
Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus and a document entitled Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief. 2 Relator’s attachment, entitled Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, is based on Relator’s desire to exclude evidence allegedly obtained in violation of his
Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. In order to seek mandamus
relief, the relator must file a petition in accordance with Rule 52 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. However, Relator’s petition fails to satisfy the requirements of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Relator’s petition fails to comply with numerous
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-10207, styled State of Texas v. Leslie Joe Allen, pending in the
144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angus McGinty presiding.
2
Please note that the requirement that a motion for leave accompany a petition was repealed in 1997. TEX. R. APP.
P. 52 notes & cmts.
04-12-00291-CR
requirements outlined in Rules 52.3(a)-(k) and 52.7(a). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52 .3 (“[t]he petition
must, under appropriate headings and in the order here indicated, contain” all of the items listed
in 52.3(a)-(k)). Additionally, the relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support
the claim for mandamus relief. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the
appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). Accordingly, the petition
for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 3
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
3
We also note that counsel was been appointed to represent Relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial
court 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). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions 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 does not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal
proceeding pending in the trial court.
-2-