Christopher Bustos v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 11, 2024
• Docket: 04-23-00776-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-00776-CR

Christopher BUSTOS, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR13086 Honorable Christine Del Prado, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 11, 2024

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

Following an abandonment hearing in the trial court due to appellant’s court-appointed

attorney’s failure to file a brief, on July 15, 2024, counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are no meritorious

issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies she has served copies of the brief and motion on

appellant, has informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and has

explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 04-23-00776-CR

85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

On July 19, 2024, appellant filed a pro se motion to dismiss his appeal. However, because

appellant is represented by counsel, he is not entitled to hybrid representation. Patrick v. State, 906

S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means

appellant’s pro se motion was treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See id.

Accordingly, on August 8, 2024, we denied appellant’s pro se motion to dismiss.

On August 12, 2024, appellant’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion

is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-