IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-82,501-02
EX PARTE JOHN JAMES SMITH, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 1234109-A IN THE 184TH 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 aggravated
robbery and sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed his
conviction. Smith v. State, No. 01-11-01114-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 30, 2013) (not
designated for publication).
Applicant contends, among other things, 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. Based on that affidavit, 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 First Court of Appeals in Cause No. 01-11-01114-CR
that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 1234109 from the 184th 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. Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 472–74 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
Delivered: April 15, 2015
Do not publish
Smith, John James
Combined Opinion