In Re Roderic Demond James Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-22-00229-CR __________________ IN RE RODERIC DEMOND JAMES __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21-38216 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Roderic Demond James seeks to compel the trial court to rule on motions, which he filed in the trial court pro se. 1 When the trial court failed to do so, James filed a petition for mandamus in this Court, also 1James’ petition is procedurally defective. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. Additionally, he failed to certify that he served a copy of the petition on the Respondent and on the State, which is the real party in interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We will look beyond these deficiencies under Rule 2, however, in order to expedite the result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2. 1 pro se. In his petition, James states that an attorney is representing him in the court below. To be entitled to relief on a writ of mandamus, the relator must demonstrate (1) there is no adequate remedy at law, and (2) there is a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. 2 “[W]hen a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of considering and resolving it is ministerial.” Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134-35 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Yet a trial court has no duty to consider and rule upon a defendant’s pro se motions when the defendant is represented by counsel since defendants in criminal cases are not entitled to hybrid representation. 3 For these reasons, James’ petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on August 23, 2022 Opinion Delivered August 24, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ. State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“[A] trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel.”). 2 2See 3See
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.
