X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The applicant was convicted of the felony offenses of aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping, and punishment was assessed at imprisonment for fifty years and five years, respectively. He appealed, and his convictions were affirmed. HOLDING:The court grants the applicant relief in the form of leave to file petitions for discretionary review of the decisions of the court of appeals. The applicant claims that he was denied an opportunity to file petitions for discretionary review because his appellate attorney did not timely notify him that he could seek discretionary review pro se. The trial court found from the attorney’s affidavit that counsel failed to specifically and timely notify the applicant that he could file pro se petitions for discretionary review by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Time limits under the Rules of Appellate Procedure are to be calculated as if the Court of Appeals’ decisions had been rendered on the day the mandate of this court issues. Should the applicant desire to seek discretionary review, he must take affirmative steps to see that his petitions are filed in the court of appeals within 30 days of the day the mandate of this Court has issued. OPINION:Per curiam. CONCURRENCE:Price, J. “I agree with the majority that we should allow the applicant to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review. I write separately to explain why I think that the doctrine of laches should not apply to this case. The facts of this case are distinguishable from Ex parte Carrio because the State did not argue that the applicant’s claims should barred by the doctrine. . . . “I do not think that the laches doctrine applies here, primarily because the State has not asked us to apply it and because the trial court made no findings on this issue. With these comments, I join the majority.” DISSENT:Cochan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Keasler, J., joined. “I respectfully dissent to granting applicant habeas corpus relief to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review. Applicant has alleged that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to advise applicant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review when he timely notified applicant that the court of appeals had affirmed his convictions. I would deny relief based on the equitable doctrine of laches otherwise known as”sleeping on your rights.’”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.