Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas denied Ross Hendricks’s pro se motion for rehearing of the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. The court concluded that, because Hendricks was represented by trial counsel, his pro se mandamus petition presented nothing for appellate review.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a pro se mandamus petition filed by a criminal defendant who is represented by trial counsel presents an issue for appellate review.
- Whether relator's filing titled a motion to reverse the denial of mandamus relief should be construed as a motion for rehearing under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 49.1.
Holdings
- A pro se mandamus petition filed by a relator who is represented by trial counsel presents nothing for the court of appeals to review.
- The court construed relator's filing as a motion for rehearing under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 49.1.
Factual background
Ross Hendricks was a relator in an underlying criminal case pending in the 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County. Although represented by trial counsel, he filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals. He later filed a pro se motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of mandamus relief.
Procedural history
Hendricks filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus on December 7, 2022. The court denied the petition on December 28, 2022, because Hendricks was represented by trial counsel and his pro se petition presented nothing for appellate review. Hendricks filed a pro se motion for rehearing on January 19, 2023, which the court construed as a motion for rehearing under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 49.1 and denied.