Julio Alvarado v. State

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-13-00894-CR; 01-13-00895-CR Style: Julio Alvarado v The State of Texas * Date motion filed : August 28, 2014 Type of motion: Motion for Discovery Party filing motion: Pro se Document to be filed:

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

Denied

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

Appellant, acting pro se, filed motions entitled “Discovery Motion—‘Brady’ Inconsistent Evidence” in both of these appeals. The motions are dismissed because appellant is represented by counsel and has no right to hybrid representation. See Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Ex Parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

Judge's signature: /s/ Michael Massengale  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of ______________________________.

Date: September 2, 2014

November 7, 2008 Revision