In re Dennis T. Keith--Appeal from 290th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 8, 2007

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

In this original mandamus proceeding, relator Dennis T. Keith requests a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his pro se pre-trial motions in the underlying criminal matter. Keith acknowledges in his petition that he is represented by trial counsel below.

To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must establish that the act sought to be compelled is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature, and there is no other adequate remedy at law. Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). When a trial court considers and rules on pro se motions while a criminal defendant is represented by counsel, it essentially allows the defendant hybrid representation, i.e., to be represented by an attorney and proceed pro se at the same time. See Meyer v. State, 27 S.W.3d 644, 648 (Tex. App.--Waco 2000, pet. ref'd). Although a trial court certainly has the discretion to permit hybrid representation, it is not required to do so. Id. (citing Scarbrough v. State, 777 S.W.2d 83, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)). It is well-established that a defendant in a criminal matter does not have a right to hybrid representation. Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n. 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)).

In this case, the act Keith seeks to compel is discretionary, not ministerial, in nature. We therefore conclude that Keith has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. PER CURIAM

1. This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CR-3574A, styled State of Texas v. Dennis Keith, pending in the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sharon MacRae presiding.