In re Shawn BeanAppeal from 437th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00544-CR IN RE Shawn BEAN Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 21, 2013 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On August 12, 2013, relator Shawn Bean filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court s failure to rule on various pro se motions pending in his criminal proceeding. However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding 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 declining to rule 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 188088, styled The State of Texas v. Shawn Bean, pending in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding. 04-13-00544-CR on relator s pro se motions filed in the pending criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.