Solis, Ex Parte David

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 25, 2010
• Docket: AP-76,386
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

---

NO. AP-76,386

---

EX PARTE DAVID SOLIS, Applicant

---

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2007-417,788 IN THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM LUBBOCK COUNTY

---

           Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

            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 a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of assault and sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years on each aggravated assault count and ten years on the assault count. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. Solis v. State, No. 07-08-00033-CR (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2008, no pet.).

            Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because she failed to timely notify him that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of his right to petition for discretionary review pro se. Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on her affidavit, the trial court found that Applicant did not receive a letter appellate counsel wrote and therefore did not know that his conviction had been affirmed on December 18, 2008. The trial court recommends that relief be granted. 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 Seventh Court of Appeals in Cause No. 07-08-00033-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 2007-417,788 from the 137th Judicial District Court of Lubbock County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with the Seventh Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: August 25, 2010

Do not publish