in Re Thomas Edward Thames, Jr., Relator

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00118-CR
IN RE Thomas E. THAMES, Jr.
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 14, 2012
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On February 22, 2012, relator Thomas Edward Thames, Jr. filed a petition for writ of
mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his various pro se motions.
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 motions filed in the criminal
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-4181, styled State of Texas v. Thomas E. Thames, pending in the
437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding.
04-12-00118-CR
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DO NOT PUBLISH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-