in Re Patricio Estrada

Opinion issued July 31, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-00620-CR
———————————
IN RE PATRICIO ESTRADA, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Patricio Estrada, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, has filed a
petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent district judge to
recuse himself, to assign his case to a different trial court, and to replace his
appointed trial counsel in the underlying criminal proceeding.1 With the petition,
relator has also filed a motion for leave to file the petition.
In light of relator stating in his petition that he is represented by appointed
trial counsel below, his pro se mandamus petition presents nothing for this Court’s
review because a criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See
Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (because appellant
was represented by counsel and was not entitled to hybrid representation, pro se
appellant’s supplemental brief presented nothing for review); Gray v. Shipley, 877
S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (per curiam)
(overruling pro se motion for leave to file mandamus petition because relator was
represented by appointed trial counsel and was not entitled to hybrid representation).
Accordingly, we dismiss the mandamus petition for want of jurisdiction and
dismiss the motion for leave as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Brown, and Caughey.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
1
The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Patricio Estrada, Cause No. 17-DCR-
77572, 268th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas, the Honorable Brady G.
Elliott presiding.
2