In re James Earl Taylor, Relator--Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00397-CR IN RE James Earl TAYLOR Original Mandamus Proceeding1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 9, 2010 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On May 21, 2010, relator James Earl Taylor filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court s failure to rule on his various pro se motions. However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is currently confined. 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). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on a pro se motion filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion 1 ¦ This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009CR8900, styled State of Texas v. James Earl Taylor, in the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Román presiding. 04-10-00397-CR by declining to rule on relator s various pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.
