EX PARTE WILLIE BERNARD CAMPBELL, Applicant (Other)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. AP-76,969 EX PARTE WILLIE BERNARD CAMPBELL, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. W06-66409-V(A) IN THE 292ND DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY Per curiam. OPINION 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 harassment of a public servant and sentenced to thirty-five years imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Campbell v. State, No. 05-08-00736 (Tex. App. - Dallas, July 14, 2009). Applicant contends, inter alia, that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel advised him that he would file a PDR on his behalf, but then failed to timely file the petition. Applicant s PDR was dismissed as untimely filed. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. 2 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 failure to timely file the PDR was error, but not ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court recommends that Applicant be afforded an out-of-time PDR. 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. 05-08-00736-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. F06-66409-V from the 292nd District Court of Dallas County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of the date on which this Court s mandate issues. Delivered: February 6, 2013 Do not publish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.