& EX PARTE JESUS MARTIN RUIZ (other)

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

















IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NOS. AP-76,588 & AP-76,589

EX PARTE JESUS MARTIN RUIZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 1072757 & 1072763 IN THE 232ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS 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 two charges of indecency with a child and sentenced to twelve and nine years' imprisonment, respectively. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. Ruiz v. State, Nos. 14-08-00932-CR & 14-08-00933-CR (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 25, 2009) (unpublished).

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to timely file petitions for discretionary review.

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's affidavit is credible and that counsel failed to timely file petitions for discretionary review. The State agrees that Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file out-of-time petitions for discretionary review of the judgments of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Cause Nos. 14-08-00932-CR & 14-08-00933-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case Nos. 1072757 & 1072763 from the 232nd Judicial District Court of Harris County. Applicant shall file his petitions for discretionary review with the Fourteenth Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court's mandate issues.



Delivered: June 29, 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Do not publish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.