EX PARTE WALLACE EARL RIDLEY (other)

Annotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

 

NO. AP-76,417


EX PARTE WALLACE EARL RIDLEY, Applicant

 

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W07-48064-Y(A) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 7

FROM DALLAS 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 murder and sentenced to sixty years imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Ridley v. State, No. 05-08-00244-CR (Tex. App. Dallas, June 15, 2009).

Applicant contends that he was denied his opportunity to petition this Court for discretionary review, because the court of appeals did not notify him when his pro se motion for rehearing was overruled. The trial court has obtained an affidavit from Applicant s prison unit mail room, indicating that Applicant did not receive any incoming mail during the applicable time period. Based on this affidavit, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that the court of appeals failed to notify Applicant when his pro se motion for rehearing was overruled. The trial court recommends that relief be granted. Ex parte Riley, 193 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 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. 05-08-00244-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. W07-48064-Y(A) from the Criminal District Court No. 7 of Dallas 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: September 22, 2010

Do not publish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.