In re Lawrence Burleson Appeal from 186th 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. 04-21-00411-CR IN RE Lawrence BURLESON, Relator Original Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 6, 2021 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On September 27, 2021, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he also requests leave to file the petition. We deny as moot relator’s request to file a petition for writ of mandamus because leave is not required to file a petition in an intermediate appellate court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1; In re Medina, 04-19-00041-CR, 2019 WL 360534, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 30, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). Relator is awaiting trial in three criminal cause numbers, and he is represented by counsel in each. In his petition, relator raises several complaints; however, he is not entitled to hybrid representation because he is represented by trial counsel below. 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 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2019CR12076, 2019CR12077, and 2019CR11800, styled The State of Texas v. Lawrence Burleson, pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore presiding. 1 04-21-00411-CR 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, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Relator is encouraged to refrain from filing further pro se petitions regarding his pending criminal proceedings in which he is represented by counsel. PER CURIAM Do not publish -2-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.