In re Jonathan L. Bolden Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00816-CR IN RE Jonathan L. BOLDEN Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 10, 2014 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Relator Jonathan Bolden filed this pro se petition for writ of mandamus on November 24, 2014, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus in the underlying criminal proceeding. Relator has been appointed trial counsel to represent him in connection with the criminal charges currently pending against him. We conclude that any original proceeding on the issue raised should be presented by relator’s trial counsel. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se mandamus petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See id.; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 20014CR0957, styled The State of Texas v. Jonathan L. Bolden, pending in the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary D. Roman presiding. 04-14-00816-CR 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM -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.
