In re Travis Foy Appeal from 264th District Court of Bell County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-21-00638-CV In re Travis Foy ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Travis Foy has filed a letter with the court, which we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus based on the substance of the filing. See Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (courts look to substance of pleading rather than its form or caption to determine its nature). Foy complains of the trial court's failure to rule on numerous pro se motions pending before the district court. Foy is represented by trial counsel, however, and “a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel.” Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Foy is not entitled to mandamus relief because the trial court has not violated any ministerial duty by failing to act on those pro se filings. See In re State ex rel. Tharp, 393 S.W.3d 751, 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). __________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith Filed: December 15, 2021 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.
