Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00872-CR IN RE Christopher CRUMEDY Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 23, 2013 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On December 31, 2012, Relator Christopher Crumedy filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion for speedy trial.

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

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012-CR-0263, styled State of Texas v. Christopher Crumedy, pending in the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary D. Roman presiding.

04-12-00872-CR

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PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-