ANDERSON, LYNDON Appeal from 102nd District Court of Bowie County (other per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-81,549-02 EX PARTE LYNDON ANDERSON, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 11F0921-102B IN THE 102ND DISTRICT COURT FROM BOWIE 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 aggravated robbery and sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Anderson v. State, No. 06-14-00168-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 9, 2015) (not designated for publication). Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of 2 his right to petition pro se for discretionary review. Appellate counsel filed this habeas corpus application with the trial court. Based on the sworn pleadings, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of his right to petition for discretionary review pro se. The trial court recommends that relief be granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 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 Sixth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 06-14-00168CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 11F0921-102 from the 102nd District Court of Bowie 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 Delivered: June 15, 2016 Do not publish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.