In re Leslie Foster Appeal from 10th District Court of Galveston County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 2, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00837-CR IN RE LESLIE FOSTER, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16CR1600 MEMORANDUM OPINION On September 25, 2018, relator Leslie Foster filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to appoint new counsel to represent him in the pending appeal of his criminal conviction, Case No. 14-1700893-CR. The jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to issue writs of mandamus is prescribed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code, which provides that a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus to enforce its jurisdiction or against certain judges identified in section 22.221(b). Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. Because relator does not seek a writ of mandamus to enforce the jurisdiction of this court or a writ against a judge, but rather asks this court to appoint new counsel, we lack jurisdiction of relator’s petition. Additionally, because relator is represented by counsel in his pending appeal, his pro se mandamus petition presents nothing for this court’s review. 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). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means that a relator’s pro se mandamus petition should be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). For these reasons, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Brown. Do Not Publish — Tex.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.