in Re Thomas Edward Thames, Jr., Relator

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00118-CR

IN RE Thomas E. THAMES, Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 14, 2012

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On February 22, 2012, relator Thomas Edward Thames, Jr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his various pro se motions. 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 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).

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH