in Re Kenneth Mitchell, Relator

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00063-CR
IN RE Kenneth MITCHELL
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On January 26, 2011, relator Kenneth Mitchell 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. 2010-CR-12264, styled State of Texas v. Kenneth Mitchell, pending in the
226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.
04-11-00063-CR
proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of
Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R.
APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-