In Re: Esther Drusina Hinson--Appeal from County Court at Law No 4 of El Paso County
Annotate this CaseCOURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
)
) No. 08-04-00119-CR
IN RE: ESTHER DRUSINA HINSON, )
)AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Relator. )
) FOR HABEAS CORPUS
)
)
OPINION
Esther Drusina Hinson has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that she is illegally confined in the El Paso County Jail. The application does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in numerous respects, including the failure to provide a record that demonstrates her entitlement to relief. See Tex.R.App.P. 52.7(a). It also appears from the application that Hinson is represented by counsel in the trial court. There is no right to hybrid representation in Texas. See Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981). Accordingly, the application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
July 1, 2004
ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice
Before Panel No. 4
Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and McClure, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
)
) No. 08-04-00119-CR
IN RE: ESTHER DRUSINA HINSON, )
)AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Relator. )
) FOR HABEAS CORPUS
)
)
J U D G M E N T
The court has considered this cause on Relator s application for writ of habeas corpus and concludes that Relator s application for writ of habeas corpus should be denied. We therefore deny the application for writ of habeas corpus, in accordance with the opinion of this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2004.
Justice, Court of Appeals for the
Eighth District of Texas
Before Panel No. 4
Barajas, C.J., Larsen, and McClure, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
)
) No. 08-04-00119-CR
IN RE: ESTHER DRUSINA HINSON, )
)AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Relator. )
) FOR HABEAS CORPUS
)
)
RECORD RETENTION STATEMENT:
Pursuant to the Supreme Court order regarding disposition of court documents in this case, it is determined that this record should be:
NOT PERMANENTLY PRESERVED
(NO HISTORICAL VALUE)
PERMANENTLY PRESERVED
(PERMANENTLY RETAIN--HAS HISTORICAL VALUE)
7/1/04
Judge s Signature Date
Date Destroyed:
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
