Pacheco, Ex Parte Alberto

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Pacheco, Ex Parte Alberto

DecidedFebruary 16, 2005

DocketAP-75,100

StatusPublished

This text of Pacheco, Ex Parte Alberto (Pacheco, Ex Parte Alberto) 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

Pacheco, Ex Parte Alberto, (Tex. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,100

EX PARTE ALBERTO PACHECO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM POTTER COUNTY

Per Curiam.

O P I N I O N

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus forwarded to this Court pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. Applicant was convicted of the felony offense of delivery of a controlled substance, and punishment was assessed at ninety years' imprisonment. Applicant appealed, and his conviction was affirmed. Pacheco v. State, No. 07-02-00076-CR (Tex. App. -- Amarillo, delivered 12/17/02, no pet.).

Applicant contends, inter alia, that he was denied an opportunity to file a petition for discretionary review because his appellate attorney did not timely notify him that his conviction had been affirmed or that he could seek discretionary review, pro se. The trial court has made no recommendation. The record does not reflect that counsel timely informed Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed or that he could file a petition for discretionary review from his conviction.

Habeas corpus relief is granted, in part, and Applicant is granted leave to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review from his conviction in cause number W-42881-01-B from the 181st Judicial District Court of Potter County. Applicant is ordered returned to the point at which he can file a meaningful petition for discretionary review. For purposes of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all time limits shall be calculated as if the Court of Appeals' decision had been rendered on the day the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that should Applicant desire to seek discretionary review, he must take affirmative steps to see that his petition is filed in the Court of Appeals within thirty days of the date the mandate of this Court has issued.

DELIVERED: FEBRUARY 16, 2005

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,100

EX PARTE ALBERTO PACHECO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM POTTER COUNTY

Per Curiam.

O P I N I O N

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus forwarded to this Court pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. Applicant was convicted of the felony offense of delivery of a controlled substance, and punishment was assessed at ninety years' imprisonment. Applicant appealed, and his conviction was affirmed. Pacheco v. State, No. 07-02-00076-CR (Tex. App. -- Amarillo, delivered 12/17/02, no pet.).

Applicant contends, inter alia, that he was denied an opportunity to file a petition for discretionary review because his appellate attorney did not timely notify him that his conviction had been affirmed or that he could seek discretionary review, pro se. The trial court has made no recommendation. The record does not reflect that counsel timely informed Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed or that he could file a petition for discretionary review from his conviction.

Habeas corpus relief is granted, in part, and Applicant is granted leave to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review from his conviction in cause number W-42881-01-B from the 181st Judicial District Court of Potter County. Applicant is ordered returned to the point at which he can file a meaningful petition for discretionary review. For purposes of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all time limits shall be calculated as if the Court of Appeals' decision had been rendered on the day the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that should Applicant desire to seek discretionary review, he must take affirmative steps to see that his petition is filed in the Court of Appeals within thirty days of the date the mandate of this Court has issued.

DELIVERED: FEBRUARY 16, 2005

DO NOT PUBLISH

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pacheco, Ex Parte Alberto, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacheco-ex-parte-alberto-texcrimapp-2005.