EX PARTE KENOL LUXAMA (original)
Annotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. AP-75,818
EX PARTE KENOL LUXAMA, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 11937-A IN THE 344TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM CHAMBERS 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 writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of more than 400 grams of cocaine with intent to deliver and sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Luxama v. State, No. 14-04-674-CR (Tex. App. - Houston [14th], delivered February 14, 2006, no pet.).
Applicant contends, inter alia, that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and that he could file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court stating that he informed Applicant's wife that the appeal had been affirmed, and was told he had no duty to file a petition for discretionary review for Applicant. Counsel did have a duty to inform Applicant timely that he could file a pro se petition for discretionary review. 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 Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 14-04-674-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 11937 from the 344th Judicial District Court of Chambers County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with the Fourteenth Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court's mandate issues.
Applicant's remaining claims are dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
Filed: 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Do not publish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.
