in Re Eric Anthony Cantu, Relator ( 2011 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00534-CR
IN RE Eric Anthony CANTU
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 3, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On July 26, 2011, relator Eric Anthony Cantu filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se “motion to accumulate all previously
served incarceration time.” However, relator is still represented by appointed counsel 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 abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011-CR-2001, styled State of Texas v. Eric Anthony Cantu, in the 226th
Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.
04-11-00534-CR
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).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-