Court Opinion

ID: 9838977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-10 07:10:24.878147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.163590
License: Public Domain

Motion Dismissed and Memorandum Dissent on Order filed September 7,
2023.

                                       In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-22-00511-CR

                      TROY EDWARD HOLT, Appellant
                                         V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                               On Appeal from the
                             Yoakum County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. CR11922

                      MEMORNADUM DISSENT ON ORDER

      It is well established that a defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation,
and I agree with the majority that we need not consider the merits of appellant’s
pro se motion for rehearing. See Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, 116 n.1
(Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (when habeas applicant was represented by counsel, court
must disregard and take no action on pro se filings); Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d
919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“[T]rial court is free to disregard any pro se
motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel.”).

      Appellant is still represented by appointed counsel, and it is not clear from
the record whether appellant’s counsel received a copy of this motion. I would
notify appellant’s appointed counsel and give counsel ten days to respond before
we dismiss appellant’s motion.

      Because the majority dismisses appellant’s motion for rehearing without
notifying his appointed counsel, I respectfully dissent.

                                       /s/       Charles A. Spain
                                                 Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain
(Spain, J., dissenting).

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                             2