IN RE: DANIEL GUIDRY--Appeal from 232nd District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
NUMBER 13-06-173-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
__________________________________________________________________
IN RE DANIEL GUIDRY
__________________________________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Castillo
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion[1]
Relator, Daniel Guidry, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on April 17, 2006. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator, who is represented by appellate counsel in Guidry v. State, No. 13-05-00469-CR (Corpus Christi filed June 10, 2005), has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. See 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); Lockhart v. State, 847 S.W.2d 568, 569 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)) (providing that an appellant does not have a right to hybrid representation). Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this 24th day of April, 2006.
[1] See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) (AWhen denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.@); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
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.