Francisco Arzate v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 4, 2013
• Docket: 01-12-01074-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

NOTICE OF ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-12-01074-CR Style: Francisco Arzate v The State of Texas 07/29/2013 Date motion filed*: Type of motion: Appellant’s Pro-Se Motion for New Appellate Counsel Party filing motion: Francisco Azarte Document to be filed: Order Denying Motion

If motion to extend time: Deadline to file document: Number of previous extensions granted: Length of extension sought:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted If document is to be filed, document due:

 The Clerk is instructed to file the document as of the date of this order  Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

X Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

This court has no jurisdiction to appoint or dismiss appointed counsel. Only the trial court has jurisdiction over appointed counsel. An indigent defendant has no right under the Federal or State Constitutions to counsel of his choosing. Stearnes v. Clinton, 780 S.W. 2d 216, 225 (Tex. Crim . App. 1989). Further, 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. To the extent this motion may be construed as a petition for writ of Habeas Corpus based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we lack jurisdiction to consider it.

Judge's signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of ______________________________.

Date: September 4, 2013

November 7, 2008 Revision