Soto v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Soto v. State

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

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 23, 1985

DocketNo. 3-82-197-CR(T)

StatusPublished

This text of 685 S.W.2d 131 (Soto v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 S.W.2d 131, 1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 6229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-v-state-texapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack