DocketNumber： 04-10-00348-CR
Filed Date： 5/19/2010
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/16/2015
• • • • • •
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00348-CR
IN RE Timothy Brant PERKINS
Original Mandamus Proceeding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 19, 2010
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On May 4, 2010, relator Timothy Brant Perkins filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se “Motion to Quash—Prosecution Barred by Limitations.”
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 a pro se motion 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 motion filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH