Harvey Leelane Searcy v. State

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00370-CR

HARVEY LEELANE SEARCY, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 40th District Court Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 39316CR

ORDER

On June 6, 2016, we received another document sent to us by appellant himself in the above referenced matter; and on June 17, 2016, we received yet another one. A copy of the documents are enclosed with this Order. A party represented by counsel is not entitled to hybrid representation. Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W. 3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

Appellant has sent numerous writings to this Court. We have forwarded these writings to appellant’s retained counsel and have advised counsel to ask her client to stop sending writings to us. This has been unsuccessful in stemming the flow of writings to us by appellant. Accordingly, we ORDER counsel to notify appellant of the prohibition of hybrid representation.

Further, we ORDER counsel to notify appellant that we will not acknowledge or respond to documents sent to this Court by appellant while an attorney of record represents the client’s interest.

Finally, we ORDER counsel to notify appellant that the Court will no longer forward communications from appellant to counsel.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed June 22, 2016

Searcy v. State Page 2