in Re James Nichols, Relator ( 2011 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00539-CR
IN RE James NICHOLS
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 3, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On July 27, 2011, relator James Nichols filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion for discovery. However,
counsel has 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 did not
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-1248, styled State of Texas v. James Nichols, pending in the
379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
04-11-00539-CR
abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motion filed in the criminal
proceeding pending in the trial court. 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 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DO NOT PUBLISH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-