Per Curiam.

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of bail jumping and his punishment was assessed at sixty-five years imprisonment. This conviction was affirmed, Vaughn v. State, No. 06-00-245-CR (Tex.App. - Texarkana, delivered November 30, 2001, no pet.).

Applicant contends that he was denied an opportunity to file a petition for discretionary review because his appellate attorney did not notify him timely that the conviction had been affirmed. An affidavit filed by appellate counsel states that counsel did not send the notice of the affirmance to Applicant until 57 days after the opinion was delivered. The trial court has found this to be true.

Therefore, Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Wilson, 965 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997). 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. He may then follow the proper procedures in order that a meaningful petition for discretionary review may be filed. 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 the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that should Applicant desire to seek discretionary review, he 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 allegations are dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

DELIVERED: June 25, 2003

DO NOT PUBLISH