Opinion
04-23-00776-CR
10-08-2024
Christopher BUSTOS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR13086 Honorable Christine Del Prado, Judge Presiding
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Following an abandonment hearing in the trial court due to appellant's court-appointed attorney's failure to file a brief, on July 15, 2024, counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserted there were no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certified she had served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83,85 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
On July 19, 2024, appellant filed a pro se motion to dismiss his appeal. However, because appellant was represented by counsel, he was not entitled to hybrid representation. Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means appellant's pro se motion was treated as presenting nothing for this court's review. See id. Accordingly, on August 8, 2024, we denied appellant's pro se motion to dismiss.
On August 12, 2024, appellant's counsel filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. On September 11, 2024, we granted appellant counsel's motion to dismiss and motion to withdraw and dismissed this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).
On September 25, 2024, appellant filed a pro se motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing and a motion for access to the appellate record. We GRANT appellant's aforesaid motions as follows: (1) the clerk of this court is directed to provide a copy of the appellate record to appellant; and (2) appellant's motion for rehearing is due no later than November 4, 2024. All relief expressly not granted herein is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.