IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-23-00055-CR IN RE BRYAN STALLWORTH

Original Proceeding

From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 30582

MEMORANDUM OPINION Bryan Stallworth has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he requests that this Court direct the trial court judge in his pending criminal cause to act on his pro se “Motion to Quash Indictment” and his pro se “Affidavit of Bryan Stallworth” in which he requests certain discovery. 1 Stallworth, however, represents that he has counsel in his pending criminal cause. Therefore, the trial court is not required to consider and rule on his pro se motions and requests. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim.

1 Stallworth’s petition for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. It also lacks a proper proof of service. See id. R. 9.5, 52.2. However, because of our disposition and to expedite it, we implement Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and suspend these rules in this proceeding only. See id. R. 2.

App. 2007) (“[A] defendant has no right to hybrid representation. . . . [A]s a consequence, a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel.”).

Stallworth’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus is therefore denied. Stallworth’s “Motion to Expedite Order” is dismissed as moot.

MATT JOHNSON Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed March 1, 2023 Do not publish [OT06]

In re Stallworth Page 2