NOS. 12-11-00122-CR

           12-11-00123-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS         

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:                                                            §                     

AARON LAMON MUSE,                             §                      ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR                                                     §                     

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Relator Aaron Lamon Muse filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions he has filed.  He asserts that the trial court has a legal duty to rule on these motions and urges that mandamus is appropriate to require the trial court to perform its duty.  We deny the petition.

            To demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus in a criminal case, a relator must establish that the trial court failed to perform a duty that is purely ministerial under the facts and the law, and that the relator has no other adequate legal remedy.  State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding). 

            A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation.  See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).  However, Relator admits that counsel has been appointed to represent him in the criminal proceedings pending in the trial court.  A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel.  See id.  Consequently, the trial court has not violated a legal duty by failing to rule on Relator’s pro se motions.  Because Relator has not shown that the trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on Relator’s pending motions, he cannot show that mandamus is appropriate.  Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

                                                                                                SAM GRIFFITH   

                                                                                                         Justice

Opinion delivered May 11, 2011.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)