Soto v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Soto v. State

685 S.W.2d 131, 1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 6229

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 23, 1985·No. No. 3-82-197-CR(T)·Published

Opinion

EARL W. SMITH, Justice.

On original submission to this Court, appellant’s judgment of conviction for delivery of heroin was reversed. Soto v. State, 649 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.App.1983). The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment of this Court in an opinion on the State’s petition for discretionary review. Soto v. State, 681 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). That court remanded the cause to this Court “for such further proceedings as are appropriate.”

The sole ground of error contained in the brief filed by appellant’s counsel on appeal has been finally disposed of by the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Although appellant has filed a pro se brief raising additional grounds of error, there is no right to hybrid representation. Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). The pro se brief filed in this appeal, therefore, presents nothing for review. An examination of the contentions asserted therein reveals no error that should be considered in the interest of justice.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EARL W. SMITH, Justice.

On original submission to this Court, appellant’s judgment of conviction for delivery of heroin was reversed. Soto v. State, 649 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.App.1983). The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment of this Court in an opinion on the State’s petition for discretionary review. Soto v. State, 681 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). That court remanded the cause to this Court “for such further proceedings as are appropriate.”

The sole ground of error contained in the brief filed by appellant’s counsel on appeal has been finally disposed of by the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Although appellant has filed a pro se brief raising additional grounds of error, there is no right to hybrid representation. Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). The pro se brief filed in this appeal, therefore, presents nothing for review. An examination of the contentions asserted therein reveals no error that should be considered in the interest of justice.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Soto v. State, 685 S.W.2d 131, 1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 6229 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

685 S.W.2d 131 (Soto v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related