in Re Christopher Cook, Relator ( 2010 )

i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00468-CR
IN RE Christopher COOK
Original Mandamus Proceeding1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 7, 2010
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On June 23, 2010, relator Christopher Cook filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking
to compel the trial court to rule on his pro se motion for speedy trial, motions for discovery, motion
for reduction of bond, motion requesting examining trial, and motion to suppress evidence.
However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending
in the trial court for which he is currently confined.2 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.
… This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-5325, styled State of Texas v. Christopher Cook, in
1
the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding.
2
… Attorney Jeanne Bloomster is appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the
trial court.
04-10-00468-CR
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 motions that relate directly to his confinement based on 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DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-