Motion Dismissed and Memorandum Dissent on Order filed September 7, 2023.

In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-22-00511-CR TROY EDWARD HOLT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Yoakum County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR11922 MEMORNADUM DISSENT ON ORDER It is well established that a defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation, and I agree with the majority that we need not consider the merits of appellant’s pro se motion for rehearing. See Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, 116 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (when habeas applicant was represented by counsel, court must disregard and take no action on pro se filings); Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“[T]rial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel.”).

Appellant is still represented by appointed counsel, and it is not clear from the record whether appellant’s counsel received a copy of this motion. I would notify appellant’s appointed counsel and give counsel ten days to respond before we dismiss appellant’s motion.

Because the majority dismisses appellant’s motion for rehearing without notifying his appointed counsel, I respectfully dissent.

/s/ Charles A. Spain Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain (Spain, J., dissenting).

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).