In this mandamus proceeding, Eric Linton complains that the trial court struck his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus for bond reduction. The record submitted by the relator shows that the trial court refused to consider the petition because Linton filed the document pro se in a criminal prosecution in which Linton is represented by counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.052 (Vernon 2005) ("A pleading, motion, and other paper filed for or on behalf of a defendant represented by an attorney must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name and state the attorney's address."). Linton placed the case number of the criminal prosecution on the filing, thus clearly filing it in the criminal case. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation and the trial court may refuse to consider pro se motions filed by a defendant who is represented by counsel. Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider Linton's pro se filing. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered September 6, 2007

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.