in Re Deaon Hargrove ( 2010 )

i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00054-CR
IN RE DEAON HARGROVE
Original Mandamus Proceeding1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 3, 2010
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On January 20, 2010, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that his right
to a speedy trial has been violated and asking this court to order the trial court to commence his trial
in the underlying criminal proceeding. Counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the trial
court. We conclude that appointed counsel for relator is also his counsel for an original proceeding
on the issues presented.
Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498
(Tex. Crim. App. 1995). 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.
… This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-7143, styled The State of Texas v. Deaon Hargrove,
1
pending in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.
04-10-00054-CR
See id.; 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 is not entitled to the relief sought.
Therefore, the petition is DENIED. TEX . R. APP . P. 52.8(a).
Relator is encouraged to refrain from filing further pro se petitions regarding his pending
criminal proceeding.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-