because appellant was represented by counsel and was not entitled to hybrid representation, pro se appellant’s supplemental brief presented nothing for review
How later courts described this case
- because appellant was represented by counsel and was not entitled to hybrid representation, pro se appellant’s supplemental brief presented nothing for review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Opinion issued June 19, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-00502-CR
———————————
IN RE ROBERT RAY CARL, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Robert Ray Carl, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, has filed a
petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent district judge to
dismiss his case or release him on a personal recognizance bond in the underlying
criminal proceeding.1 In light of relator stating in his petition that he is represented
by trial counsel below, his pro se mandamus petition presents nothing for this
1
The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Robert Carl, Cause No. 1567696, 174th
District Court, Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Hazel B. Jones presiding.
Court’s review because a criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation.
See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (because appellant
was represented by counsel and was not entitled to hybrid representation, pro se
appellant’s supplemental brief presented nothing for review); Gray v. Shipley, 877
S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (per curiam)
(overruling pro se motion for leave to file mandamus petition because relator was
represented by appointed trial counsel and was not entitled to hybrid representation).
Accordingly, we dismiss the mandamus petition for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Brown, and Caughey.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
2