Tucker, George Leroy, Jr. v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 8, 1999
Docket05-95-01079-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Tucker, George Leroy, Jr. v. State (Tucker, George Leroy, Jr. v. State) 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
Tucker, George Leroy, Jr. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

FILED IN 70URT OF APDf/u.«

';:rp 1 3 ]qqc *i CLERK, 5th DI61K1CT

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS A fl o NO. 73,504

EX PARTE GEORGE LEROY TUCKER, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FROM DALLAS COUNTY

The opinion was delivered per curiam.

OPINION

This is apost-conviction application for awrit ofhabeas corpus forwarded to this Court pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted ofthe offense of aggravated assault, and punishment was assessed at forty-five years imprisonment. This conviction was affirmed. Tucker v. State. No. 05-95-01079-CR (Tex. App.- Dallas, opinion delivered June 24,1996, no pet.). Applicant contends, inter alia, that he was denied an opportunity to file apetition #mizm*mmm*

for discretionary review because his appellate attorney did not notify himthat his

conviction had been affirmed. The trial court, upon an affidavit from Applicant's counsel

on appeal, has recommended that relief be granted, and we agree. $££ Ex Parte Wilson.

956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

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 F-94-

62471-HR from the 2658th Judicial District Court of Dallas 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 shouldApplicant desireto seek discretionary review,

he must take affirmative steps to seethathis petition is filed in the Court of Appeals

within thirty days of the date the mandate of this Court has issued.

Applicant's remaining claims arehereby dismissed.

DELIVERED: September 8, 1999 DO NOT PUBLISH O o / ., WVI U.S.POSIAGE «>•- SEP-9'99 UICO flfrjc* sec 50 2 6 1 Court of Criminal Appeals $ox 12308 LISA ROMBOK Capitol Station CLERK 5TH COURT OF APPEALS ®u6tinMtxa$787U COURTHOUSE 600 COMMERCE 2ND FLOOR DALLAS TX 752 02 73,504 txnm lli>ilihlml>lllmiililil,ill

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

Related

Ex Parte Wilson
956 S.W.2d 25 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tucker, George Leroy, Jr. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-george-leroy-jr-v-state-texapp-1999.