In Re: George W. Fulco v. the State of Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed October 17, 2024

In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-01197-CR

IN RE GEORGE W. FULCO
Original Proceeding from the 15th Judicial District Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-08957

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Miskel
Before the Court is relator’s October 10, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator is charged with an offense in Grayson County that is set in the 15th District

Court. Relator asks this Court to compel the 15th District Court to rule on pretrial

motions he claims he filed in the court. We deny relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure in numerous respects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1; TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–

(k); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Thus, relator’s petition does not meet the

requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of

mandamus relief. See In re Guillaume, No. 05-24-00765-CV, 2024 WL 3548511, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 26, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying

mandamus relief based on relator’s failure to comply with several Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure).

Additionally, relator is represented by counsel in the underlying criminal

proceeding. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Robinson

v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d

481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The issue relator raises in his pro se petition for

writ of mandamus relates directly to the criminal proceeding in which he is

represented by counsel. Therefore, because relator is not entitled to hybrid

representation, he has presented nothing for this Court’s consideration. See Patrick,

906 S.W.2d at 498.

We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

241197f.u05 /Emily Miskel/
Do Not Publish EMILY MISKEL
TEX. R. APP. P. 47 JUSTICE

–2–