Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-26-00451-CR __________________ IN RE REBEL HAYZ BREAUX __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 163rd District Court of Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. 250302-C __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Rebel Hayz Breaux, acting pro se, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. He asks the appellate court to compel the trial court to rule on motions Breaux filed pro se after the trial court appointed counsel to represent Breaux in the habeas corpus proceeding that is pending in the trial court. We deny relief. The trial court appointed an attorney to represent Breaux in Breaux’s Article 11.09 application for a writ of habeas corpus. Displeased with the perceived lack of progress in his case, on October 13, 2026, Breaux filed a pro se motion asking the trial court to substitute counsel in the habeas corpus proceeding and continue the hearing scheduled for November 6, 2026. The following day, Breaux filed a pro se 1 Brief Addressing Hybrid Representation. On October 22, 2026, Breaux filed a pro se motion requesting a ruling on his motion to substitute counsel. Breaux requested appointed counsel to represent him in the habeas corpus proceedings. Breaux persists in that desire, requesting only that the lawyer be substituted with an attorney from outside Orange County and that the writ hearing be postponed. After Breaux filed his mandamus petition, he notified the appellate court that his attorney filed a notice of intent to introduce medical records in the scheduled hearing. Breaux contends the timing of this pre-hearing filing is suspicious given that Breaux is seeking mandamus relief. In a supplemental notice, Breaux complains that habeas counsel mis-stated the correct style for the habeas corpus proceeding and referred to himself as the attorney for the Defendant and not as the attorney for the Applicant. Breaux argues compelling the trial court to address Breaux’s pro se motions is not an improper attempt to exercise hybrid representation because his motions affect the management of the habeas corpus proceeding and not the claim for relief. Some decisions are personal and in those matters the attorney must accede to the decisions of the client, but trial management is the attorney’s province. Ex parte Barbee, 616 S.W.3d 836, 842 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). As far as his complaints regarding the competence of habeas counsel, Breaux has an adequate remedy by appeal. 2 A relator seeking mandamus must establish both a ministerial duty—a clear right to relief—and the absence of an adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). A trial court is under no duty to rule on motions filed and presented by a person while that person is being represented by counsel. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); see also Ex parte Woodson, No. WR-31,183-02, 2022 WL 2345819, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. June 29, 2022) (mem op., not designated for publication) (applying Robinson rule to a habeas corpus proceeding). We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and any request for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a), 52.10. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on November 3, 2026 Opinion Delivered November 4, 2026 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ. 3