In re Jonathan Perkins--Appeal from 339th District Court of Harris County (per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Opinion issued November 22, 2011. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-11-00892-CR NO. 01-11-00929-CR IN RE JONATHAN PERKINS, A/K/A SEDRICK PERKINS, Relator Original Proceedings on Petitions for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION In two petitions for writ of mandamus, relator, Jonathan Perkins, a/k/a Sedrick Perkins, challenges the trial court s failure to rule on his pro se motion for hybrid representation.1 1 A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid The underlying cases are The State of Texas v. Jonathan Perkins, No. 131708201010 and The State of Texas v. Jonathan Germaine Perkins, 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). Further, the law does not require a trial court to rule on pro se motions filed in a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. A trial court thus does not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on a defendant s pro se motion for hybrid representation. We deny the petitions for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 131685401010, both in the 339th District Court, Harris County, the Honorable Maria T. Jackson presiding. 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.