EX PARTE TIMOTHY LEE FRANKS (original)

Annotate this Case
Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion     Close This Window















IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NO. AP-75,814

EX PARTE TIMOTHY LEE FRANKS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 3032462 IN THE 403RD DISTRICT COURT

FROM TRAVIS 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 murder and sentenced to ninety-nine years' imprisonment.

Applicant was granted an out-of-time appeal from this Court in May, 2006. This out-of-time appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on December 12, 2006. Franks v. State, 219 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. App.-Austin, 2006). Applicant contends that appellate counsel failed to file a new notice of appeal after this Court granted Applicant relief, thereby denying him the right to appeal that was granted by this Court.

The trial court has determined that trial counsel forwarded the old notice of appeal to the court of appeals, but failed to file a new notice of appeal as required. We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction in Cause No. 3032462 from the 403rd Judicial District Court of Travis County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.



Delivered: January 16, 2008

Do Not Publish

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.