From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stepherson v. State

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
Aug 8, 2017
Cause number: 01-16-00936-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 8, 2017)

Opinion

Cause number: 01-16-00936-CR

08-08-2017

Waymon Jaeshell Stepherson v. The State of Texas


ORDER ON MOTION

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time to Amend or Supplement Appellant's Brief Party filing motion: Pro Se Appellant Document to be filed: Motion to Amend or Supplement Appellant's Brief Ordered that motion is:

[ ] Granted

[ ] Denied

[v] Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

[v] Other: __________

On July 19, 2017, appellant's appointed counsel timely filed appellant's brief on the merits and has not sought to withdraw from representing appellant. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 6.5. Accordingly, appellant's pro se motion for an extension of time to amend or supplement his brief is dismissed as moot because he is currently represented by counsel and is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (stating "[a]ppellants are not allowed to have hybrid representation" and appellant did not have right to file documents with appellate court while represented by counsel).
Judge's signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

[v] Acting individually [ ] Acting for the Court Date: August 8, 2017 November 7, 2008 Revision


Summaries of

Stepherson v. State

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
Aug 8, 2017
Cause number: 01-16-00936-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 8, 2017)
Case details for

Stepherson v. State

Case Details

Full title:Waymon Jaeshell Stepherson v. The State of Texas

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

Date published: Aug 8, 2017

Citations

Cause number: 01-16-00936-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 8, 2017)