Court Opinion

ID: 9635168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:40:05.758495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:15.383529
License: Public Domain

CASTILLO, Justice,
concurring on motion for rehearing.
I concur with the result of the majority opinion. The majority withdrew our original opinion particularly to address the merits of an issue asserted in a brief Hor-ner filed pro se to supplement the brief his court appointed appellate counsel filed on his behalf. Respectfully, I would hold that Horner has presented nothing for appellate review in his fourth issue presented.
Homer requested and was granted court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. His counsel filed a brief in the case. Homer has not clearly and unequivocally asserted his right to represent himself on appeal. Thus, court appointed counsel remains the attorney of record in this appeal. There is no right to hybrid representation. Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). Accordingly, I would hold that Horner is not entitled to hybrid representation on appeal. The pro se brief presents nothing for review. Id. Without reaching or addressing the merits of Horner’s supplemental issue, on this record I would also vacate as improvidently granted any order allowing him hybrid representation.