Barry Arthur Brown v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided July 18, 2016·No. 04-15-00706-CR·Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 18, 2016

No. 04-15-00706-CR

Barry Arthur BROWN, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR7118A Honorable Philip Kazen, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant has filed a pro se motion requesting permission to supplement the brief filed by appellate counsel. Appellant is represented by Mr. James Oltersdorf. In Texas, appellants do not have a right to hybrid representation. Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 18th day of July, 2016.

Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barry Arthur Brown v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Barry Arthur Brown v. State (Barry Arthur Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rudd v. State
616 S.W.2d 623 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1981)