Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed December 31, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-01025-CR

NO. 14-09-01052-CR

____________

IN RE DONDIE FANT, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On December 8, 2009, relator, Dondie Fant, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Jan Krocker, presiding judge of the 184th District Court of Harris County, to rule on his pro se motion to set bail, motion for funds for a DNA expert for an indigent defendant, and motion to have written rulings made on all motions filed by the defendant.  In his petition, relator explains that “relator and his court appointed counsel cannot adequately conter [sic] concerning the offense with which the relator is charged while relator is limited and confined” because the trial court has not acted on his pro se motions[1] 

It is well-settled that a defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation.  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).  As a consequence, the trial court has no legal duty to rule on a pro se motion filed in a proceeding in which the accused is represented by counsel.  Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922.  Therefore, the trial court has no duty to rule on relator’s pro se motions because he is represented by counsel in the proceeding below.

            Relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus.  Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.  

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Brown.

Do Not Publish—Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).