in Re Christopher Crumedy, Relator

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00572-CR
IN RE Christopher CRUMEDY
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 19, 2012
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
Relator Christopher Crumedy was charged with the offense of possession of a controlled
substance with intent to deliver alleged to have occurred on October 14, 2011. Crumedy was
arrested and confined at the Bexar County Adult Detention Center. Bail was set at $20,000.00;
and on October 30, 2011, the trial court determined Crumedy was indigent and appointed
counsel. On February 3, 2012, Crumedy allegedly filed a pro se motion for bond reduction with
the trial court. On July 30, 2012, Crumedy appeared before the trial court represented by
counsel. Although Crumedy had previously filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking to dismiss his
trial counsel, Crumedy agreed to drop the writ and proceed with the trial date.
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012CR0263, styled State of Texas v. Christopher Crumedy, pending in
the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary D. Roman presiding.
04-12-00572-CR
Crumedy alleges his trial counsel participated in a hearing on August 1, 2012 without his
consent or presence; and as a result, Crumedy’s alleges his bond was increased to $30,000.00.
On September 6, 2012, Crumedy filed a petition for writ of mandamus contending the trial
court’s failure or refusal to grant his application for bond reduction is irreparably impairing and
prejudicing his ability to present a reasonable defense to the charges against him.
However, counsel has been appointed to represent Crumedy 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 Crumedy’s pro se 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-