CARTER, JOHNNIE EDISON Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (original per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-94,278-01 EX PARTE JOHNNIE EDISON CARTER, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 15-22215-A IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY Per curiam. SLAUGHTER , J., filed a concurring opinion. OPINION Applicant originally pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. Later, he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Carter v. State, No. 09-20-00175-CR (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 8, 2022) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07. Applicant contends that appellate counsel failed to timely inform Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and advise him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Based on the record, the trial court has determined that appellate counsel’s performance was 2 deficient and that Applicant would have timely filed a petition for discretionary review but for counsel’s deficient performance. Relief is granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Crow, 180 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant may file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the Ninth Court of Appeals in cause number 09-20-00175CR. Should Applicant decide to file a petition for discretionary review, he must file it with this Court within thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Delivered: November 16, 2022 Do not publish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.