Ex Parte Steptoe

132 S.W.3d 434, 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 667, 2004 WL 840214

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 21, 2004
• Docket: 74938, 74939
• Status: Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

These are post-conviction applications for writs of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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. See Steptoe v. State, Nos. 14-94-00200-CR and 14-94-00201-CR, 1996 WL 87202 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no pet.).

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. The Applicant is entitled to relief. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).

We grant the applicant relief in the form of leave to file petitions for discretionary review of the decisions of the Court of Appeals.

Time limits under the Rules of Appellate Procedure shall 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 thirty days of the day the mandate of this Court has issued.

The applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).

PRICE, J., filed a concurring opinion. COCHRAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KEASLER, J., joined. KELLER, P.J., and HOLCOMB, J., dissented without opinion.