Trotter, Hillman Leslie v. Texas, the State Of

Court of Appeals of Texas

Trotter, Hillman Leslie v. Texas, the State Of

DecidedDecember 2, 1998

Docket05-92-01693-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Trotter, Hillman Leslie v. Texas, the State Of (Trotter, Hillman Leslie v. Texas, the State Of) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trotter, Hillman Leslie v. Texas, the State Of, (Tex. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS DEC 0? 1998

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALc^lS OF TEXAS

NO. 73*244

EX PARTE HILLMAN LESLIE TROTTER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FROM DALLAS COUNTY

The opinion was delivered per curiam. Meyers, J., dissents.

OPINION

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to

Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of possession of cocaine and his punishment, enhanced by a prior conviction, was assessed at thirty years imprisonment. This conviction was affirmed, Trotter v. State, No. 05-92-1693-CR (Tex.App. - Dallas, delivered August 23, 1993, no pet.). Applicant contends that he was denied an opportunity to file a petition for discretionary review because his appellate attorney did not notify him that the (,4Bg^*^^*^^l«^'*«!«^S'^:«Jjyi;;W»' s*h«b*v••--•«?.>•«<

TROTTER - 2

conviction had been affirmed or what he needed to do to file such a petition. An

affidavit filed by appellate counsel states that counsel has no record any notice of the affirmance was sent to Applicant. The trial court has recommended that Applicant be

granted an opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review. Therefore, Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Wilson, 965 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997). The proper remedy in a case such as this is to return Applicant to the point at which he can file a petition for discretionary review. He may then follow the proper procedures in order that a meaningful petition for discretionary review may be filed. 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 after the mandate of this Court has issued.

PER CURIAM

DELIVERED: December 2, 1998 DO NOT PUBLISH

Meyersv J-» dissents 8 a

p CO 25

< w w 04 U CU Pi r< W En § O O U H p; o cn 5 o o ssmisara « O U WJ M LD oaiaosaad O » m w w ,. '- O Ln p B pi O m to .< W H >< en Pi pi J h W £ J J J O < m UUP

i

O

W

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

FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS DEC 0? 1998

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALc^lS OF TEXAS

NO. 73*244

EX PARTE HILLMAN LESLIE TROTTER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FROM DALLAS COUNTY

The opinion was delivered per curiam. Meyers, J., dissents.

OPINION

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to

Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of possession of cocaine and his punishment, enhanced by a prior conviction, was assessed at thirty years imprisonment. This conviction was affirmed, Trotter v. State, No. 05-92-1693-CR (Tex.App. - Dallas, delivered August 23, 1993, no pet.). Applicant contends that he was denied an opportunity to file a petition for discretionary review because his appellate attorney did not notify him that the (,4Bg^*^^*^^l«^'*«!«^S'^:«Jjyi;;W»' s*h«b*v••--•«?.>•«<

TROTTER - 2

conviction had been affirmed or what he needed to do to file such a petition. An

affidavit filed by appellate counsel states that counsel has no record any notice of the affirmance was sent to Applicant. The trial court has recommended that Applicant be

granted an opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review. Therefore, Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Wilson, 965 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997). The proper remedy in a case such as this is to return Applicant to the point at which he can file a petition for discretionary review. He may then follow the proper procedures in order that a meaningful petition for discretionary review may be filed. 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 after the mandate of this Court has issued.

PER CURIAM

DELIVERED: December 2, 1998 DO NOT PUBLISH

Meyersv J-» dissents 8 a

p CO 25

< w w 04 U CU Pi r< W En § O O U H p; o cn 5 o o ssmisara « O U WJ M LD oaiaosaad O » m w w ,. '- O Ln p B pi O m to .< W H >< en Pi pi J h W £ J J J O < m UUP

i

O

W

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Trotter, Hillman Leslie v. Texas, the State Of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trotter-hillman-leslie-v-texas-the-state-of-texapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack