in Re Ernest Hastings, Relator ( 2011 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00064-CR
IN RE Ernest HASTINGS
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On January 26, 2011, relator Ernest Hastings filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se “Motion to Quash Indictment and
Illegal Arrest.” 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 abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-7940, styled State of Texas v. Ernest Hastings, pending in the
437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori Valenzuela presiding.
04-11-00064-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DO NOT PUBLISH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-