In re Mark A. Martinez--Appeal from 379th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00669-CR IN RE Mark MARTINEZ Original Mandamus Proceeding1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 24, 2008 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Relator Mark Martinez filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court s failure to rule on various motions.2 Relator has been appointed counsel to represent him in the trial court. We conclude that relator s appointed counsel in the trial court is also his counsel for an original proceeding on the issue presented. To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must establish: (1) the act sought to be compelled is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature, and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. Deleon v. District Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Respondent ¦ This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-7316-B, styled The State of Texas v. Mark A. Martinez, pending in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Bert Richardson presiding. 1 ¦ Relator s petition is entitled Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Mandamus; however, we construe it as a mandamus petition because it seeks to compel the trial court to rule on the various motions. 2 04-08-00669-CR has no ministerial duty to rule on relator s pro se motion because relator is represented by appointed counsel and 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). 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. Accordingly, relator s petition for writ of mandamus 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.
