In Sheppard v. State, 391 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), a criminal defendant, represented by counsel in the Fifth District Court of Appeal in his direct appeal from his conviction, filed a "Motion" which, if properly before that court, would have constituted a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. See 391 So. 2d at 347. The Fifth District noted that the defendant was represented on appeal by the public defender, who had been appointed at the defendant's request, and that the record in the appeal did not in any way indicate that the attorney had been either discharged or relieved from his responsibilities as counsel through substitution. See id. Concluding that the defendant could not both represent himself and be represented by counsel in the appeal, the Fifth District struck the pro se "petition" from the record in the appeal. See id. at 347. See also: Lewis v. State, 766 So. 2d 288, 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ("A criminal defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to represent himself and, at the same time, to have the assistance of counsel."); Salser v. State, 582 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) ("We pointed out [in Sheppard] that the defendant may have the right under certain circumstances to waive counsel and represent himself but the defendant has no right to be represented for the purposes that suit him and unrepresented for other purposes."); Stinnett v. State, 576 So. 2d 927, 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) ("Faretta does not entitle a defendant to 'hybrid' representation; there is no constitutional right of a defendant 'to choreograph special appearances by counsel.'"); Studnicka v. Carlisle, 567 So. 2d 17, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) ("Petitioners who are represented by counsel should file pleadings only through counsel. a defendant who has court-appointed counsel may not act as co-counsel as a matter of right.").