In re Eddie Lundy, Relator--Appeal from 437th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00718-CR IN RE Eddie LUNDY Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 20, 2010 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On October 8, 2010, relator Forest Holmes filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court s failure to rule on his pro se motions. 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 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-0566, styled State of Texas v. Eddie Lundy, pending in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori Valenzuela presiding. 04-10-00718-CR declining to rule on relator s pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
