MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00261-CR IN RE Kenneth MITCHELL Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2011 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On April 6, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions. 2 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 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-12264, styled State of Texas v. Kenneth Mitchell, pending in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.

We note that on January 26, 2011, relator filed a similar petition for writ of mandamus in Cause No. 04-11-0064- CR, which was denied on the same basis as the petition at issue is denied.

04-11-00261-CR on relator’s pro se motions 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PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-