in Re James Nichols, Relator

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00539-CR IN RE James NICHOLS Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 3, 2011 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On July 27, 2011, relator James Nichols filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion for discovery. 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 pro se motions or petitions 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, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot.

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH