Herrera, Ex Parte Ricardo Arturo ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •              IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    OF TEXAS
    NO. AP-76,581
    EX PARTE RICARDO ARTURO HERRERA, Applicant
    ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
    CAUSE NO. 93-CR-1553-D IN THE 103 RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
    FROM CAMERON COUNTY
    Per curiam.
    OPINION
    Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the
    clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte
    Young, 
    418 S.W.2d 824
    , 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated
    robbery and sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his
    conviction. Herrera v. State, No. 13-96-011-CR (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi, November 6, 1997).
    Applicant contends, inter alia, that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance
    because counsel failed to advise him of his right to file petition for discretionary review pro se.
    Appellate counsel did advise Applicant when the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction,
    2
    and advised him of his right to petition this Court for discretionary review. However, appellate
    counsel did not advise Applicant of his right to do so pro se, and Applicant alleges that the only
    reason he did not pursue discretionary review was that he could not afford to retain counsel.
    The trial court recommends that relief be denied, citing language from this Court’s opinion
    in Ex parte Wilson, 
    956 S.W.2d 25
    , 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), indicating that the appellate
    attorney’s actions in that case, of mailing the applicant a copy of the court of appeals’ opinion and
    informing him that he did not believe that a petition for discretionary review would have merit, were
    sufficient to protect the applicant’s right to file a petition for discretionary review if he so desired.
    We disagree, because as we also stated in Ex parte Wilson, appellate counsel has an obligation to
    inform a defendant of the fact that he can pursue discretionary review “on his own.” 
    Id. at 27.
    We
    find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for
    discretionary review of the judgment of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 13-96-011-CR
    that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 93-CR-1553-D from the 103rd Judicial District Court of
    Cameron County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with the Thirteenth Court
    of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.
    Applicant's remaining claims are dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 
    943 S.W.2d 469
    (Tex.
    Crim. App. 1997).
    Delivered: June 22, 2011
    Do not publish
    

Document Info

Docket Number: AP-76,581

Filed Date: 6/22/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/16/2015