EX PARTE MARTIN MENDOZA REYNOZA, Applicant (Other)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-80,853-01 EX PARTE MARTIN MENDOZA REYNOZA, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. CR 08A-010 IN THE 222 ND DISTRICT COURT FROM DEAF SMITH 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 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 ninety-nine years imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Reynoza v. State, 07-08-00452-CR (Tex. App. Amarillo delivered Sep. 3, 2009). Applicant contends that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because 2 counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that conviction had been affirmed. 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 stating that he sent Applicant a timely letter. However, an affidavit from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice s mail system coordinator shows that Applicant did not receive that letter. Based on those affidavits, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that Applicant was denied the right to file a pro se petition of discretionary review. The trial court recommends that relief be granted. Ex parte Riley, 193 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 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 Seventh Court of Appeals in Cause No. 07-08-00452-CR that affirmed conviction in Cause No. CR08A-010 from the 222 nd District Court of Walker County. Applicant shall file petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of the date on which this Court s mandate issues. Delivered: June 4, 2014 Do not publish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.