Anthony Sorel Haywood v. State
This text of Anthony Sorel Haywood v. State (Anthony Sorel Haywood v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
ORDER
Appellate case name: Anthony Sorel Haywood v. The State of Texas
Appellate case number: 01-13-00994-CR
Trial court case number: 1373686
Trial court: 176th District Court of Harris County
On March 28, 2014, appellant Anthony Sorel Haywood filed a motion for extension of library time. The motion is DENIED. Appellant is not entitled to “hybrid representation,” which is defined as representation partly by counsel, partly by self. See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Pro se motions filed by a criminal defendant already represented by counsel may be disregarded. Id. It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle X Acting individually Acting for the Court
Date: April 8, 2014
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Anthony Sorel Haywood v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-sorel-haywood-v-state-texapp-2014.