EX PARTE NATHAN L. GOODWIN, Applicant (Other)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NOS. WR-79,568-02 AND WR-79,568-03 EX PARTE NATHAN L. GOODWIN, Applicant ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. 10CR1699-83-1 AND 10CR1700-83-1 IN THE 212TH DISTRICT COURT FROM GALVESTON 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 these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery and felon possessing a firearm and was sentenced to concurrent terms of seventy-five and fifty years in prison, respectively. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. Goodwin v State, Nos. 14-12-00274-CR and 14-12-00275-CR (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 12, 2013). Applicant contends that he was denied his right, through no fault of his own, to pursue pro se petitions for discretionary review in this Court after his convictions were affirmed by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. The trial court recommends that relief be granted, and the writ record -2supports the recommendation. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 26 -27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Crow, 180 S.W.3d 135, 138-39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 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. 14-12-00274-CR and 14-1200275-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause Nos. 10CR1699 and 10CR1700 from the 212th District Court of Galveston County. Applicant shall file his petitions for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of the date on which this Court s mandate issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. Delivered: October 30, 2013 Do not publish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.
