In re Billy Ethington, Relator--Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00619-CR IN RE Billy ETHINGTON Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 10, 2012 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On September 25, 2012, relator Wilbert P. Stewart filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court s failure to rule on his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. 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 pro se motions or petitions 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 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2012-CR-2040 and 2011-CR-6447, styled State of Texas v. Billy Ethington, pending in the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Ramon presiding. 04-12-00619-CR abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.
