PD-0160-18, PD-0161-18, PD-0162-18 04/11/2018
“The court of appeals’ [sic] committed a structural error by denying the appellant his right’s of due process. The second issue is whether the appellant has a right to file a pro se appeal brief after the court denies appellant his right to find new appeal counsel, and after the court has allowed the appointed attorney to withdraw from the case.”
After Sullivan’s appellate attorney filed his appellate brief, Sullivan filed a letter with the court of appeals terminating his attorney’s representation and asking for an extension to: (1) find new counsel or proceed pro se, and (2) file a brief and postpone submission. Two days after the case was submitted, counsel filed a motion to withdraw. The court granted counsel’s motion but denied Sullivan’s motion. Sullivan filed a pro se brief and, in striking it, the court of appeals issued an order advising Sullivan that counsel was discharged after submission. The court of appeals ruled on the points of error presented in counsel’s brief and affirmed his conviction.
Sullivan contends that, as reflected in the court’s docket, he discharged counsel a day before the case was submitted. Therefore, he was denied the right to present a pro se brief and is entitled to an out-of-time appeal.