In re Robert Martinez--Appeal from County Court at Law No 9 of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00480-CR IN RE Robert MARTINEZ Original Mandamus Proceeding1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice Catherine Stone, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 23, 2008 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On July 8, 2008, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus; therefore, we deny the motion for leave to file as moot. See TEX . R. APP . P. 52.1. On July 8, 2008, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking this court to order the trial court to rule on his pro se Motion for Speedy Trial and to set his trial date. Mr. Philip Anthony Meyer has been appointed to represent relator in the trial court. We conclude that appointed counsel for relator is also his counsel for an original proceeding on the issue presented. 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 229666 & 229667, styled The State of Texas v. Robert Martinez, pending in the County Court at Law No. 9, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Laura Salinas presiding. 04-08-00480-CR To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must establish that (1) the act sought to be compelled is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Respondent has no ministerial duty to rule on relator s pro se motion because relator is represented by appointed counsel, and relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Consequently, the respondent did not violate a ministerial duty by declining to rule on relator s motion. Therefore, this court has determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought, and the petition 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.
