In re Aaron Guillory Appeal from 208th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued July 28, 2020 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00510-CR NO. 01-20-00511-CR ——————————— IN RE AARON GUILLORY, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Aaron Guillory, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to perform its ministerial function to hold a hearing and/or rule on relator’s applications for writ of habeas corpus filed in two causes.1 1 The underlying cases are The State of Texas v. Aaron Guillory, Cause Nos. 1646207 and 1663883, in the 208th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Greg Glass presiding. We dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. Relator has filed his petition for writ of mandamus pro se. However, a review of the record establishes that in both underlying cases, the trial court has entered an “Order Appointing Counsel,” representing that relator is indigent and providing him with court-appointed counsel. Accordingly, relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for this Court to review because a criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (because appellant was represented by counsel and was not entitled to hybrid representation, appellant’s pro se supplemental brief presented nothing for review); Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (orig. proceeding) (overruling pro se motion for leave to file mandamus petition because relator was represented by appointed trial counsel and not entitled to hybrid representation). Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Landau. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 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.