|
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
|
NO. 02-12-00627-CR
|
Jose Camacho
v.
The State of Texas |
§
§
§
§
§ |
From County Criminal Court No. 5
of Denton County (F-2011-0602-B)
January 31, 2013
Opinion by Justice McCoy
(nfp) |
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
By_________________________________
Justice Bob McCoy
|
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
|
NO. 02-12-00627-CR
|
JOSE CAMACHO |
|
APPELLANT |
V.
|
THE STATE OF TEXAS |
|
STATE |
------------
FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 5 OF DENTON COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
------------
Appellant Jose Camacho attempts to appeal from the trial court’s September 25, 2012 judgment convicting him of felony DWI and sentencing him to forty years’ confinement pursuant to a plea agreement.
Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on November 27, 2012, and the trial court’s certification of his right to appeal states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.”
On December 21, 2012, this court notified appellant’s appointed counsel about the statements on the trial court’s certification and of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the notice of appeal was due on October 25, 2012, but was not filed until November 27, 2012, making it untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2, 26.2. We informed him that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before January 10, 2013, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal could be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. Appellant’s appointed counsel has not filed a response.[2] Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).
BOB MCCOY
JUSTICE
PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 31, 2013
[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
[2]Appellant, the district attorney, the court reporter, the trial court clerk, and the trial judge received copies of our letter, and appellant responded with a pro se motion for a thirty-day extension of time to address our letter. However, because he has appointed counsel, appellant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See, e.g., Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, 116 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing direct appeals for the proposition that when an applicant is represented by counsel, the court may disregard his pro se submissions and take no action on them). Therefore, we do not consider his motion.