in Re Edward Bell, Relator

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00454-CR
IN RE Edward BELL
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 13, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On June 29, 2011, relator Edward Bell filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining
of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se “motion to disqualify prosecution team” and
motion to set for a hearing/trial. However, counsel has been retained 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.
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011-CR-4774A, styled State of Texas v. Edward Bell, pending in the
187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Raymond Angelini presiding.
04-11-00454-CR
Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se
motions 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DO NOT PUBLISH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-