Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 03-02-2021
Case Style:
In Re: Brandon Earl Crocker
Case Number: 12-21-00002-CR
Judge: By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
Plaintiff's Attorney: Mr. Michael J. West
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Tyler, TX - Criminal defense attorney represented Brandon Earl Crocker with a charge.
Brandon Earl Crocker, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to challenge
Respondent’s failure to rule on his motion to reform the judgment.1 The record reflects that
Relator’s counsel filed a motion to reform the judgment on October 15, 2020.2
Accordingly, the
record demonstrates that Relator is represented by counsel.3 A criminal defendant is not entitled
to hybrid representation. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Relator must look to appointed counsel for representation in this original proceeding. See In re
Bice, No. 12-12-00038-CR, 2012 WL 2033131, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 6, 2012, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The absence of a right to hybrid
representation means Relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for this
court to review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see also Ire Searcy, No. 14-20-00481-CR, 2020 WL 4012007, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
July 16, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam); Bice,
2012 WL 2033131, at *1.
Outcome: Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: