Opinion
NO. 14-16-00843-CR
03-27-2018
DENNIS ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1462169
ORDER
On February 8, 2018, our court issued its opinion in this case. On February 27, 2018, appellant filed a pro se motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. On March 13, 2018, appellant filed a pro se motion for rehearing.
The motion is considered timely because it was mailed February 22, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b); Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d 39, 44 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
The motion is considered timely because it was mailed March 3, 2018. See id.
On March 9, 2018, appellant's appointed counsel filed a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon filing the petition for discretionary review, this court lost authority to issue a new opinion or judgment, which is the ultimate relief requested in appellant's motion for rehearing. See Vidales v. State, 471 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (per curiam order).
Moreover, because appellant is represented by counsel, his pro se filings effectively seek impermissible hybrid representation. A criminal appellant has no right to hybrid representation in which both the appellant and his attorney present independent arguments. See Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). A court is not required to respond to pro se filings when a criminal defendant is represented by counsel. See Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, 117 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (noting that court disregarded and took no action on habeas corpus applicant's pro se submissions because he was represented by counsel). To the extent that appellant's pro se motion for rehearing complains about his appointed counsel's performance, appellant has an adequate remedy to address that complaint with the trial court. See Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 905, 908 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) (recognizing that the trial court retains the power to appoint new counsel while an appeal is pending, as long as the change does not prejudice the defendant's rights).
Accordingly, we take no action on appellant's motion for extension of time and motion for rehearing.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Jewell.