From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. State

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
Oct 22, 2013
Appellate case number: 01-13-00447-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 22, 2013)

Opinion

Appellate case number: 01-13-00447-CR Appellate case number: 01-13-00448-CR Trial court case number: 1356098 Trial court case number: 1356099

2013-10-22

Samuel Espinoza Rodriguez v. The State of Texas


ORDER

Trial court: 182nd District Court of Harris County

On October 15, 2013, appellant filed a "First Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Pro Se Brief 'In the Interests of Justice'" in the above referenced appeals. The record reflects appellant is represented by appointed counsel. Appellant is not entitled to hybrid representation, which is defined as representation partly by counsel, partly by self. See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). This Court may disregard pro se filings when a party is represented by counsel. Id. Moreover, appellant's brief is not yet due, so the motion for extension is premature. Appellant's brief will be due 30 days after the complete record is filed, and appellant's counsel is responsible for filing the brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

Appellant's motion is denied.

It is so ORDERED. Judge's signature: Rebeca Huddle

[v] Acting individually [ ] Acting for the Court


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. State

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
Oct 22, 2013
Appellate case number: 01-13-00447-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 22, 2013)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. State

Case Details

Full title:Samuel Espinoza Rodriguez v. The State of Texas

Court:COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

Date published: Oct 22, 2013

Citations

Appellate case number: 01-13-00447-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 22, 2013)