PD-0199-15
June 19, 2015
June 15, 2015
Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk
Court of Criminal Appeals
Post Office Box 12308
Austin, Texas 78711-2308
Re: Appeal No. 05-13-01137-CR
PD-0199-15
Dear Mr. Acosta:
Enclosed for timely and proper filing is Appellant's
Motion For Rehearing On Petition For Discretionary Review.
Thank you for presenting this to the Court.
Yours Sincerely,
,uis Rudolfo Lopez,
Luis Lope #1$74821
Polunsky Unit
3872 Fm 350 South
Livingston, Texas 77351
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRWIMAMPPEALS
JUN 19 2015
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
LUIS RUDOLFO LOPEZ, §
APPELLANT
§
VS. § APPEAL NO. 05-13-01137-CR
§ PD-0199-15
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
APPELLEE §
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
On August 8, 2013, a Dallas County jury found Appellant
guilty of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child and assessed his
punishment at forty years imprisonment.
On direct appeal, court appointed counsel alleged in.a
firmly grounded error that trial counsel was ineffective. The
Dallas Court of Appeals , relying on Mata v State, 226 S.W.3d
425,430 (Tex.Ctim.App. 2002), determined that the record was too
incomplete and underdeveloped to determine counsel's performance
and resolved Appellate Counsel's claim against him without abate
ment. See page 10 Court Opinion in originally filed PDR.
Applicant contends that the Supreme Court opinion in Trevino
v Thaler, U.S. , 133 S.Ct. 1911, 185 L.Ed ..2d 1044 (2013),
governs his case because Texas courts have repeatedly directed
prisoners to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims via
the State's Habeas Corpus remedy rather than on direct appeal.
The reasoning in Trevino followed the Supreme Court decision
•1-
announced in Martinez v Ryan, U.S. , 132 S.Ct. 1309,
162 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), holding that when it is a defendant's
first opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel by collateral review, he is entitled to the effective
assistance of counsel in prosecuting his claim.
Since the Dallas Court of Appeals determined that the rec
ord was inadequate to make a determination on counsel's perform
ance, Applicant strongly contends that it was "plain error" for
the Court of Appeals to rule against him without an abatement or
a remand for the appointment of counsel for postconviction pur
poses.
Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim which
was raised by his court appointed attorney was an essential part
of his direct appeal and he should not now be forced to abandon
his Sixth Amendment claim.
This case need to be decided now without requiring App
ellant to seek further review.
Respectfully Submitted
Luis Rudolfo Lopez, #1874821
Polunsky Unit
3872 Fm 350 South
Livingston, Texas 77351
Executed: June _j_Q_/ 2015
••t/\
-fa
<-•
ft
b
<
is-