Ex Parte Florentino

206 S.W.3d 124, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1692, 2006 WL 2620001
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 13, 2006
DocketAP-75498
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 206 S.W.3d 124 (Ex Parte Florentino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Florentino, 206 S.W.3d 124, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1692, 2006 WL 2620001 (Tex. 2006).

Opinions

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

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 assault (5 counts) and sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment. The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Florentino v. State, No. 08-96-000407-CR (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998, no pet.).

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to timely advise him of his right to petition for discretionary review pro se.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Counsel also filed his original notification letter sent to applicant informing him his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. That letter did not inform Applicant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Counsel does not assert in his affidavit that he ever personally informed applicant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

The trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel did not render deficient performance. We disagree. We conclude appellate counsel failed to timely notify applicant of his right to petition for discretionary review pro se. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). 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 Eighth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 08-96-00407-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 960D02874-120-1 from the 120th Judicial District Court of El Paso County, Texas. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with the Eighth Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ex Parte Gary Griffin v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
Clemons, Louis Ramon
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2023
Kinsey, Clone
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2023
Reaves, Harold James
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2023
Pedro Jimenez v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021
Robledo, Raymond Oscar
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2020
Ramirez, Joel
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014
Perez, Ex Parte Alberto Giron
398 S.W.3d 206 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2013)
Manning, Ronald
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2012
Davis, Ex Parte Eric Lamond
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2011
Juan Anthony White v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
Ex Parte Florentino
206 S.W.3d 124 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
206 S.W.3d 124, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1692, 2006 WL 2620001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-florentino-texcrimapp-2006.