Harrison, Ex Parte Craig Ronald

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. AP-76,987 EX PARTE CRAIG RONALD HARRISON, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 1132564 IN THE 185TH DISTRICT COURT FROM HARRIS 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 theft and sentenced to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Harrison v. State, No. 14-10-00254-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 17, 2011) (unpublished). 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 his right to petition pro se for discretionary review. 2 Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. The trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended that relief be denied. The findings of fact and conclusions of law are not supported by the habeas record, which contains counsel’s admission that she did not advise applicant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and Applicant’s un-rebutted evidence that he did not receive notice until several months after his conviction was affirmed. 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. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 14-10-00254- CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 1132564 from the 185th District Court of Harris 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 Delivered: March 6, 2013 Do not publish