in Re Rene Sanchez

Opinion issued January 29, 2004 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________ NOS. 01-03-01289-CR 01-03-01290-CR 01-03-01291-CR 01-03-01292-CR ____________ IN RE RENE SANCHEZ, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Rene Sanchez, filed a motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus, and a petition for writ of mandamus. We grant the motion for leave to file the petition. In his petition, Sanchez requests that this Court order respondent to: (1) dismiss the charges pending against him in cause numbers 954651, 954652, 954725, and 954871; (2) enter written rulings on his pro se motions filed in the four pending cases; and (3) release him from confinement. We deny relief. “Mandamus will not issue where there is a clear and adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). We have reviewed relator’s substantive complaints and determined that they are reviewable by direct appeal. For example, the question of whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated is directly appealable after conviction. See Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (conviction reversed on speedy trial grounds). A trial court’s rulings on motions to suppress evidence are also reviewable on appeal. See, e.g., Marsh v. State, 115 S.W.3d 709, 712 (Tex. App.— Austin 2003, no pet. reported). Thus, relator has an adequate remedy at law for his substantive complaints. Sanchez’s remaining complaints, filed pro se in the trial court, and his contention that respondent has not yet ruled on them are similarly without merit. Appointed counsel represents Sanchez in the trial court and he is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The trial court therefore has no duty to rule on relator’s pro se motions, and mandamus is not an available remedy. Sanchez offers no record support for his contention that the trial court has inappropriately refused to set bail or give him a speedy trial, and these claims, if meritorious, should be addressed by his appointed counsel in the first instance in the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j). The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Bland. Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).