In Re Ronald Gayton v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Opinion issued June 18, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00370-CR
———————————
IN RE RONALD GAYTON, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Ronald Gayton, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus challenging the trial court’s alleged failure to either recuse himself or
refer the motion to the regional presiding judge after relator filed his second
motion to recuse.1
1
The underlying case is State of Texas v. Ronald Gayton, cause number 19414,
pending in the 21st District Court of Washington County, Texas, the Honorable
J.D. Langley, visiting judge, presiding.
Relator filed the motion to recuse and this petition for writ of mandamus pro
se despite stating in the mandamus petition that he is represented by defense
counsel, Zoe Coufal. A defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation in the
trial court or the appellate court. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1995). Because the issues raised in this petition concern his criminal
proceeding in which he is represented by counsel, his petition for writ of
mandamus presents nothing for review. See id.; In re West, 419 S.W.3d 312, 312–
13 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, orig. proceeding).2
We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are
dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
2
Relator has also attached to his petition a copy of the trial court’s order on the
second motion to recuse, indicating that the judge declined to recuse himself and
referred the motion to the Presiding Judge of the Second Administrative Judicial
Region for assignment of a judge to hear the motion.
2