Samuel Aguilar v. State ( 2014 )

FILE COPY
SIIARON KELLER ABEL ACOSTA
PR¡SIDÌNG JUDGE CounT oF CRIMTNAL APPEALS CLER(
(5t2)463-r55r
P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION
LA}YRINCE MEYERS
TOM PRICE AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 SIÁNSCHILHAB
PAUL \{OM,{CK GENERAL COUNSEL
CHERYL JOHNSON, (5 l2) 4ó3,r 600
MIKE KEASLER
BARBAR.A. P. HDRYEY
CATHYCOCHR.AN
ELSA ALCALA.
JUDGES
August 20, 2014
i30th District Court Presiding Judge SAMUELAGUILAR
1700 7th St, Rm 317 Coffreld Unit - TDC # 1631736
Bay City,TX77414-5034 2661Fltl2054
Tennessee Colony, TX 75884
Re: AGIIILAR, SAMUEL
CCÀ No. WR-81,758-01 COA No. 13-10-00273-CR
Trial Court Case No. 09-253-A
The cou¡t has issued an opinion on the above referenced cause numbe¡.
cc: District Attorney Matagorda County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
District Clerk Matagorda County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
13th Court Of Appeals Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
IN
FILEÞ
THE 13TH COURf OFAPPEALS
coRPUS CHRlSll
AUG 2 0 20t4
SurR¡ME CoURT ButLDrNG,20 t wEsr l4TH STR-EET, RooM 106, AusrrN, TExAs 7g70l
.WEBSITE
WWW,CCÀ.COURTS,STATE.TX.US
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
IN lHE
Ft¡_Et)
13TH COURTOFAÞPFÀI
NO. WR-81.758-0r CORPUS CHRISTI
C
AUG 20 2014
EX PARTE SAMUEL AGUILAR, Applicant
fur;A/^- l'?ruJlt^
,éreex J
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEÄS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. O9-253-A IN THE 13OTH DISTRICT COURT
FROM MATAGORDA COUNTY
Per curiam.
OPINION
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 ofthe Texas code of criminal procedure, the
clerk ofthe trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ ofhabeas corpus. Ex parte
Young, 418 s.w.2d 824, 826 (Tex. crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and
sentenced to life imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affi¡med his convi ction. Aguilar
v. State,No. 13-10-00273-CR (Tex. App.-{orpus Ch¡isti 2011, no pet.).
Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because she
failed to timelynotiff him that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him ofhis right
to petition pro se for discretionary review.
The trial court found that Applicant was not advised ofhis right to frle a pro se petilion for
2
discretionary review (PDR). It recommended that we grant Applicant an out-of-time pDR We
agree. Ex parte ll¡ilson,956 S.W.2d25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of{ime pDR
ofthejudgment ofthe Thi¡teenth court ofAppeals in cause number 13- 10-00273-cR that affirmed
his conviction in cause number 09-253 from the l30th District court of Matagorda counly.
Applicant shall file his PDR with this court within 30 days of the date on which this court's
mandate issues.
Delivered: August 20, 2014
Do not publish