In this mandamus proceeding, Thomas Smith Mathes III seeks to compel the trial court to dismiss the attorney appointed to represent Mathes in a proceeding for post-conviction forensic DNA testing and appoint counsel selected by Mathes. Relator also seeks to compel the trial court to order the Drug Enforcement Agency to produce records of its surveillance of the relator.

The motions Mathes refers to were filed pro se while he was represented by counsel. There is no right to hybrid representation in criminal cases. See Scarbrough v. State, 777 S.W.2d 83, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). The trial court has the discretion to refuse to entertain pro se motions filed while the accused is represented by counsel. Busselman v. State, 713 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.). Furthermore, the right to counsel does not encompass the right to choice of appointed counsel, and the trial court is under no duty to appoint an attorney agreeable to Mathes. See Malcom v. State, 628 S.W.2d 790, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). Finally, we note that the surveillance records present no potential for forensic DNA testing. Because the relator has not established a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

WRIT DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered September 28, 2006

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.