EX PARTE DAVID ALEXANDER BAILEY (other)
Annotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. AP-76,537
EX PARTE DAVID ALEXANDER BAILEY, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 7877-A IN THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM LAMPASAS 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 with intent to deliver a controlled substance and sentenced to thirty-five years' imprisonment. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Bailey v. State, No. 03-07-417-CR (Tex. App.-Austin, October 27, 2009).
Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to file a promised extension of time for Applicant to file his petition for discretionary review (PDR) pro se. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
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 file a promised extension of time for Applicant to file hi petition for discretionary review pro se and that failure caused Applicant to miss his deadline to file his PDR. 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 Third Court of Appeals in Cause No. 03-07-417-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 7877 from the 27th Judicial District Court of Lampasas County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with the Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court's mandate issues.
Delivered: April 20, 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Do not publish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.
