EX PARTE SANTONIO MURFF (original)

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

















IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NO. AP-75,852

EX PARTE SANTONIO MURFF, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 0573275A IN THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM TARRANT 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 capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Murff v. State, No. 02-97-00190-CR (Tex. App.-Fort Worth, delivered January 15, 1998).

Applicant contends that he was denied the right to file a petition for discretionary review because he was not timely notified of the affirmance of his appeal and his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

Applicant provided evidence that he was bench warranted out of his regular prison housing the day before his appeal was affirmed and while on bench warrant did not receive any mail from his appellate attorney. Due to this evidence, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that Applicant was denied his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. 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 Second Court of Appeals in Cause No. 02-97-00190-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 0573275A from the 371st Judicial District Court of Tarrant County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with the Second Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court's mandate issues.



Delivered: February 27, 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Do not publish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.