EX PARTE ANTONIO MORA CHAVEZ (original)

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

















IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NO. AP-75,856

EX PARTE ANTONIO MORA CHAVEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 23341-86 IN THE 86TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM KAUFMAN 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 aggravated robbery and sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Chavez v. State, No. 05-05-01590-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas, delivered December 7, 2006). Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to inform him of 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 Fifth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 05-05-01590-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 23341-86 from the 86th Judicial District Court of Kaufman County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with the Fifth Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court's mandate issues.



Delivered: March 5, 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Do not publish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.