Harvey Leelane Searcy v. State ( 2016 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15-00370-CR
HARVEY LEELANE SEARCY,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 40th District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 39316CR
ORDER
On June 6, 2016, we received another document sent to us by appellant himself in
the above referenced matter; and on June 17, 2016, we received yet another one. A copy
of the documents are enclosed with this Order. A party represented by counsel is not
entitled to hybrid representation. Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App.
2001).
Appellant has sent numerous writings to this Court. We have forwarded these
writings to appellant’s retained counsel and have advised counsel to ask her client to stop
sending writings to us. This has been unsuccessful in stemming the flow of writings to
us by appellant. Accordingly, we ORDER counsel to notify appellant of the prohibition
of hybrid representation.
Further, we ORDER counsel to notify appellant that we will not acknowledge or
respond to documents sent to this Court by appellant while an attorney of record
represents the client’s interest.
Finally, we ORDER counsel to notify appellant that the Court will no longer
forward communications from appellant to counsel.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Order issued and filed June 22, 2016
Searcy v. State Page 2