Jaicourrie Finley v. State ( 2010 )

NO. 07-10-00240-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010
JAICOURRIE FINLEY, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 61,383-A; HONORABLE DAVID GLEASON, JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On June 16, 2010, appellant, Jaicourrie Finley, filed a pro se notice of appeal
with this Court indicating appellant’s desire to appeal the district court’s “denial of an
injunction/protective order.” On June 30, 2010, this Court received correspondence
from appellant, entitled “Appellant’s Brief,” that indicates that appellant is attempting to
appeal the denial of a motion for injunctive relief in his pending criminal prosecution.
This “brief” expressly indicates that the motion for injunctive relief was filed by court-
appointed counsel. The clerk’s record in this cause was received on September 9,
2010. The clerk’s record includes a “Motion for Order to Transfer to Another Unit,”
which was denied by the trial court, and appears to be the motion that appellant is
seeking to appeal. This motion was filed by counsel, and nothing in the clerk’s record
indicates that counsel has ever been permitted to withdraw from representation of
appellant in the underlying criminal proceeding.
Because appellants are not allowed to have hybrid representation on appeal and
because the record does not reflect that appellant’s counsel has been permitted to
withdraw from representation in this matter, we may not consider the merits of
appellant’s appeal. See Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).
Because this correspondence was filed by appellant pro se while appellant is
represented by counsel, the Court hereby dismisses the appeal without prejudice to
refiling by counsel.
Per Curiam
2