Edward Guerra v. State

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-17-00464-CR Style: Edward Guerra v. The State of Texas Date motion filed*: January 18, 2018 Type of motion: Motion to Stay Appeal Party filing motion: Pro Se Appellant Edward Guerra Document to be filed: N/A

Ordered that motion is:  Granted  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ On September 22, 2017, appellant’s appointed counsel timely filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, which has not been granted pending appellant’s January 29, 2018 pro se Anders response deadline. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5; Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Accordingly, appellant’s pro se motion to stay this appeal to allow counsel of record more time to review possible “falsified documentation” is dismissed as moot because he is currently represented by counsel and is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 8 8 3 , 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (stating “[a]ppellants are not allowed to have hybrid representation” and appellant did not have right to file documents with appellate court while represented by counsel). Appellant’s counsel, Kevin P. Keating, is directed to contact the pro se appellant regarding this motion to stay appeal.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes  Court

Date: January 30, 2018

November 7, 2008 Revision