Warren Pierre Canady v. State

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 3, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-11-00074-CR ____________ WARRAN PIERRE CANADY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1276450 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from the denial of appellant’s pro se request to be released on a personal recognizance bond pending trial on a charge of credit card abuse.[1] The clerk’s record was filed April 21, 2011. Our record contains no order signed by the trial court.[2] In the absence of a signed order, we lack jurisdiction over this attempted appeal. See Ex parte Lewis, 196 S.W.3d 404, 405 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.). On January 11, 2011, a jury convicted appellant of fraudulent use of a credit card in the underlying case. The court sentenced appellant to confinement for five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Therefore, the issue of pre-trial bond has now been rendered moot. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from his conviction, and counsel was appointed to represent appellant in his appeal. The appeal from appellant’s judgment of conviction is pending before this court under our appellate number 14-11-00073-CR. Because appellant is represented by counsel on appeal, he has no right to file a separate appeal. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (recognizing the established rule that an appellant has no right to hybrid representation in Texas). Accordingly, this appeal is ordered dismissed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Frost, Jamison, and McCally. Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). [1] Appellant earlier sought a writ of mandamus to compel his release on a personal bond, but we lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. See In re Canady, No. 14-10-01002-CR, 2010 WL 4400359 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 4, 2010, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication). [2] Our record contains a copy of a form letter to appellant, which reflects that the trial court took no action on appellant’s “ notice of appeal on motion.” The form also states: “Your motion has not been ruled on. There is nothing to appeal.”