DocketNumber： 14-10-01060-CR
Filed Date： 11/18/2010
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/23/2015
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November 18, 2010.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-10-01060-CR
____________
ERIK LAWSON, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
176th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1243460
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On October 29, 2010, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator complains that respondent, the Honorable Shawna Reagin, presiding judge of the 176th District Court of Harris County, has denied his motion for hybrid representation.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig.proceeding).
Because there is no absolute right to hybrid representation, a trial court's ruling on such representation is not a ministerial act but discretionary. See Ganther v. State, 187 S.W.3d 641, 648 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) (citing Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex.Crim.App.1990)). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Boyce, and Christopher.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).