IN RE: DANIEL GUIDRY--Appeal from 232nd District Court of Harris County

NUMBER 13-06-173-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________

  IN RE DANIEL GUIDRY

__________________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Castillo

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion[1]

Relator, Daniel Guidry, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on April 17, 2006. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator, who is represented by appellate counsel in Guidry v. State, No. 13-05-00469-CR (Corpus Christi filed June 10, 2005), has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. See Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Lockhart v. State, 847 S.W.2d 568, 569 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)) (providing that an appellant does not have a right to hybrid representation). Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 24th day of April, 2006.

[1] See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) (AWhen denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.@); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).