Wilbert P. Stewart v. State

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00419-CR
Wilbert P. STEWART,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1993CR0145
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 22, 2018
DISMISSED
On June 18, 2018, appellant filed a notice of appeal, stating he intended to appeal the trial
court’s order denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. The clerk’s record in this appeal has
been filed, and it shows appellant was convicted in 1993 based on his plea of guilty and pursuant
to a plea bargain. The clerk’s record also shows appellant sought or is seeking habeas relief under
article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
On July 3, 2018, we issued an order noting that this court lacks jurisdiction over the denial
of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and over post-conviction felony proceedings under article
04-18-00419-CR
11.07. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig.
proceeding); Castor v. State, 205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.). We also
noted that in a plea bargain case, a defendant has a limited right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(a)(2). Our July 3, 2018 order gave appellant notice that this appeal would be dismissed unless
he, by August 1, 2018, filed a response showing this court has jurisdiction over his appeal and that
he has the right of appeal.
No response to this court’s July 3, 2018 order has been filed. However, on July 20, 2018,
appellant, acting pro se, has filed a document titled, “Summons.” The document asserts appellant
has the right to appeal and requests that this court notify him “of all proceeding[s] done so far and
anything [else] pertaining to [his] appeal.” When, as here, an appellant has appointed counsel, the
appellant is not entitled to hybrid representation and any document filed pro se presents nothing
for our review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see also TEX.
R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within
five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment,
along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
under Rule 68.”). Based on the foregoing, this appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-