in the Interest of Baby v.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 6, 2017
• Docket: 04-16-00754-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 6, 2017

No. 04-16-00754-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF BABY V.,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016-PA-00239 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

This is an appeal from an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. On December 28, 2016, this Court received a pro se letter from Appellant William Hedgecock. Appellant is represented by appointed counsel. See In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009). We construe appellant’s letter as a motion for appointment of new appellate counsel. In Texas, a defendant has no right to appointed counsel of choice. See Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945, 949 (Tex. Crim. App.1992); Malcom v. State, 628 S.W.2d 790, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); Lyles v. State, 582 S.W.2d 138, 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). We DENY appellant’s motion for appointment of new counsel.

With regard to any other requested relief contained in his letter, because appellant is represented by appointed counsel, he does not have the right to hybrid representation and cannot file pro se motions. See Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Therefore, any other requested relief contained in his letter is DENIED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of January, 2017.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court