Opinion issued June 25, 2024

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00438-CR ——————————— IN RE JESSE PRATHER, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Jesse Prather filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking that we direct the trial court and district attorney’s office to compel (1) a response to relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus; (2) a polygraph exam to prove actual innocence; and (3) remove attorney Jeffery Erskine from representation of relator.1

The underlying case is State of Texas v. Jesse Prather, cause number 1867291, pending in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Hazel B. Jones presiding.

Relator states that he has been arrested and jailed but has not been indicted.

He states that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but an 11.07 writ is reserved for defendants who have been convicted of a felony offense. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 11.07, §1.

Relator also states that he is represented by counsel and relator has not shown that this counsel has withdrawn. A criminal defendant has no right to hybrid representation, and “a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel.” Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Moreover, because relator has counsel, his pro se petition presents nothing for review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re Badyrka, No. 01-23-00235-CR, 2023 WL 3010961, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 20, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).