In Re Ronald Gayton v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued June 18, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00370-CR ——————————— IN RE RONALD GAYTON, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Ronald Gayton, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s alleged failure to either recuse himself or refer the motion to the regional presiding judge after relator filed his second motion to recuse.1

1 The underlying case is State of Texas v. Ronald Gayton, cause number 19414, pending in the 21st District Court of Washington County, Texas, the Honorable J.D. Langley, visiting judge, presiding.

Relator filed the motion to recuse and this petition for writ of mandamus pro se despite stating in the mandamus petition that he is represented by defense counsel, Zoe Coufal. A defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation in the trial court or the appellate court. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Because the issues raised in this petition concern his criminal proceeding in which he is represented by counsel, his petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for review. See id.; In re West, 419 S.W.3d 312, 312– 13 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, orig. proceeding).2

We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

2 Relator has also attached to his petition a copy of the trial court’s order on the second motion to recuse, indicating that the judge declined to recuse himself and referred the motion to the Presiding Judge of the Second Administrative Judicial Region for assignment of a judge to hear the motion.