Opinion
04-21-00203-CR
11-17-2021
EX PARTE Armando RAMOS,
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR6442-W1 The Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding
ORDER
LORI I. VALENZUELA, JUSTICE.
On August 9, 2021, appellant filed a pro se motion seeking dismissal his appointed counsel and allowing him to represent himself on appeal. On August 12, 2021, this court ordered appellant's appointed appellate counsel to file a response to appellant's pro se motion no later than August 23, 2021. In response, on August 20, 2021, appointed appellate counsel filed a motion for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel for appellant. Appointed counsel's motion requests leave to withdraw and an abatement of appellate deadlines pending resolution of the motion. On August 24, 2021, we abated this cause to the trial court to conduct a hearing on these matters. On August 30, 2021, appellant filed a pro se brief.
On November 1, 2021, the trial court conducted the hearing we ordered. A transcript of the hearing and a supplemental clerk's record containing the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law have been filed with this court. The trial court found: (1) appellant desires to prosecute his appeal; (2) appellant wishes to discharge appellate counsel, Richard Dulany; and (3) appellant "requested and was granted substitute appellate counsel and thus, is not proceeding pro se." After authorizing Mr. Dulaney's withdrawal, the trial court appointed Raymond Martinez as appellate counsel. Accordingly, we lift the abatement.
Pending before this court are the following pro se motions:
1. Motion for Court to Compel Counsel to Forward Copy of Anders Brief to Appellant (filed September 23, 2021);
2. Motion Objecting to Denial of Open Court Faretta Hearing Admonishments (filed November 4, 2021); and
3. Motion for Standby Counsel During Appellate Procedure (filed November 4, 2021).
Appellant is presently represented by court-appointed counsel, Mr. Martinez. There is no right to hybrid representation. Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Without regard to whether this court has jurisdiction over the motions, we DENY AS MOOT the pending pro se motions on the basis that appellant is not entitled to hybrid representation.
Mr. Martinez is hereby ORDERED to file appellant's brief no later than December 17, 2021