i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00465-CR IN RE Timothy Brant PERKINS Original Mandamus Proceeding1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 14, 2010 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On June 22, 2010, relator Timothy Perkins filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his pro se motion for speedy trial, which he alleges he filed on June 7, 2010.

However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court.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. 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 … This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 264347, styled State of Texas v. Timothy Brant Perkins, in County Court at Law No. 12, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Michael Mery presiding.

… Attorney Mark LaHood was appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court.

04-10-00465-CR

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 motion that relates directly to his 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PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH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-