EX PARTE LASARO SANDOVAL (other)

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

















IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NO. AP-76,512

EX PARTE LASARO SANDOVAL, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 49,915-B IN THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM POTTER 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 aggravated assault and sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal. Sandoval v. State, No. 07-06-00187-CR (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2006, no pet.).

Applicant contends that he was denied his right to appeal. We remanded this application to the trial court and directed it to make findings of fact and conclusions of law and to order trial and appellate counsel to respond to Applicant's claim.

On remand, the trial court concluded that Applicant was denied his right to a meaningful appeal. Although there is no response from trial counsel in the supplemental record, we find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction in Cause No. 49,915-B from the 181st Judicial District Court of Potter 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: March 9, 2011

Do Not Publish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.