This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus forwarded to this Court pursuant to Article 11.07, § 3, et seq., V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of the offense of aggravated sexual assault and the punishment was assessed at confinement for life. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Nobles v. State, No. 08-01-00035-CR (Tex.App. - El Paso, delivered February 14, 2002, no pet.). In the present application Applicant contends, inter alia, that he was never told of the affirmance of his conviction and his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. The writ record reflects that Applicant was never notified of his right to file a pro se PDR and is therefore entitled to relief. In Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 26 (Tex.Cr.App., 1997), we wrote, "If appellate counsel's action or inaction denies a defendant his opportunity to prepare and file a petition for discretionary review, that defendant has been denied his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel." To fully discharge his duties as an appellate attorney "counsel on appeal must inform a defendant of the result of the direct appeal and the availability of discretionary review." Wilson, 956 S.W.2d at page 27.
Habeas corpus relief is granted and Applicant is granted the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review. The proper remedy in a case such as this is to return Applicant to the point at which he can file a petition for discretionary review. For purposes of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all time limits shall be calculated as if the Court of Appeals' decision had been rendered on the day that the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that Applicant, should he desire to file a petition for discretionary review, must take affirmative steps to see that his petition is filed in the Court of Appeals within thirty days after the mandate of this Court has issued. All other contentions raised in this application are dismissed.
DELIVERED APRIL 30, 2003
DO NOT PUBLISH