•           •           • • • •

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00348-CR

IN RE Timothy Brant PERKINS

Original Mandamus Proceeding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:            Karen Angelini, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 19, 2010 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

            On May 4, 2010, relator Timothy Brant Perkins filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se “Motion to Quash—Prosecution Barred by Limitations.”

            However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is currently confined. 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 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 filed in 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DO NOT PUBLISH