in Re Michael Keyser, Relator ( 2011 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00390-CR
IN RE Michael KEYSER
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 15, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On June 3, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial
court’s failure to rule on his pro se “motion for examining trial.” 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
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2011-CR-4213, 2011-CR-4214, and 2011-CR-4215, styled State of Texas
v. Michael Keyser, pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Maria Teresa
Herr presiding.
04-11-00390-CR
declining to rule on relator’s pro se motion 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).
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DO NOT PUBLISH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-