Opinion
No. 04-16-00241-CR
06-06-2017
From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015CR1094
Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding
ORDER
On June 1, 2017, Appellant filed a pro se motion to supplement Appellant's brief and a supplemental brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7; 4TH TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 8.4 (requiring leave of court to supplement a brief).
Appellant's appellate counsel filed Appellant's Brief on February 22, 2017. Because an appellant is not entitled to hybrid representation on appeal, Appellant's motion is DENIED. See Marshall v. State, 210 S.W.3d 618, 620 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (explaining that defendants have no right to hybrid representation on appeal and pro se brief will not be addressed): Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (per curiam) ("Appellants are not allowed to have 'hybrid representation' on appeal, in which an appellant and an attorney can present independent points to an appellate court.").
/s/_________
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of June, 2017.
/s/_________
Luz Estrada
Chief Deputy Clerk