in Re Ernest Hastings, Relator

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00064-CR

IN RE Ernest HASTINGS

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 26, 2011, relator Ernest Hastings filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se “Motion to Quash Indictment and Illegal Arrest.” 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).

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH