Opinion
No. 10-18-00046-CR
05-22-2019
BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DAWSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15349
ORDER
The opinion and judgment in this appeal issued on April 24, 2019. Appellant was represented by appointed counsel on appeal. Any motion for rehearing was due on May 9, 2019. Appellant's pro se Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing was filed on May 10, 2019 but was timely mailed on May 8, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2 (b)(1); 10.5 (b); 49.1.
Where it is clear that we will not receive a motion for rehearing from appointed counsel, we have held that it does not offend the rule against hybrid representation or the need for a Faretta hearing for the Court to consider a timely filed motion for rehearing, or a timely filed motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing, filed by a self-represented appellant. Sadler v. State, No. 10-15-00136-CR, slip op. at 3, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Waco Dec. 17, 2015, order) (publish). In this case, we have not been informed that counsel will not be filing a motion for rehearing. However, appellant's motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing was timely mailed and then filed the day after the last day for filing a motion for rehearing. Since then, appointed counsel has not filed a motion for rehearing or a motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing on appellant's behalf. We infer from this that counsel exercised his professional judgment and decided not to file a motion for rehearing on appellant's behalf.
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975).
Accordingly, we proceed to a determination of appellant's motion for extension of time on its merits and grant appellant's motion. Appellant's Motion for Rehearing is due 45 days from the date it was originally due, June 24, 2019.
PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill
Motion granted
Order issued and filed May 22, 2019