## IN TH E C OU RT OF C RI MIN A L A PP EA LS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 75, 932

EX PA R TE C H A R LE S M EL V I N FR O U D , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US F ROM CAUS E N O. 9 7 CR1 7 4 2 - 8 3 I N T HE 2 1 2 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT TH OF GA LVES TON CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provis i o n s o f Ar ticle 11.07 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was c onvicted of a g g ravated sexual assault of a

child and sente nced to twe nty -five year s’ imprisonment. Appel l ate counsel filed an An de rs brief and a motion to withdraw , which wa s g rante d by the cour t of appe als when that court aff irmed Applica

nt’s conviction. Frou d v. Sta te , No. 14-06-00882- CR (Tex. App.– Houston [ 14 th Dist.] , Marc h 22, 2007).Applicant contends that appellate counsel failed to c omply with the require ments of An de rs
v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct
. 1396, 18 L .Ed.2d 493 (1967), in that c ounsel failed to notify Applicant of his withdrawa l or provide Applicant a copy of hi s brief to allow Applicant to raise a ny claims he be lieved to be mer itorious. Se e Sta ffo rd v . S tate , 813 S.W .2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Th e tr ia l c ourt

ob ta ine d a

n a ff id a v i t f r o m a pp e llate c ouns e l in

re sp on se to A

pp lic ant’ s c la ims , and conduc ted a ha

beas he aring . In his affidavit, counsel s t at es that he se nt a copy of the An de rs brief a nd a letter ref

err ing Applicant to the appellate court to continue his appea l to Applicant. At the habe as hea

ring , counsel testified that he has a rec eipt showing that these doc uments were
re c e ive d b y TD CJ. Ap pli c ant te sti fi e d at the ha be a s h e ari ngtha

t he ne ve r r e c e ive d th e do c ume nts beca use he w as moved a

round within TDCJ a number of times duringthe per iod in question. The trial c ourt has ente red f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law , finding that Applicant testified at the habeas hearing that throug h no fault of his attorney , he wa s not properly notified of his right to file a pr o s e br ie f i n r e sp on se to a pp e llate c ouns e l’ s A n d

e rs b ri ef. The trial court
rec ommends that relief

be g rante d. As the United States Supreme Court held in An de rs : The c onstitut ional require ment of substantial equa lity and fa ir proce ss ca n o n l y be attained whe re c ounsel ac ts in the role of a n active a dvocate in behalf of his client, as op po se d to that of ami c us c ur ia e . . . . Hi s r ole a s a dv oc ate re qu ir e s th at he su pp or t hi s client' s appea l to the best of his ability . Of c ourse, if c ounsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, afte r a conscie ntious e x amination of it, he should so advise the c ourt and re quest permission to withdraw. That reque st must, however, be acc ompanied by a brie f re fer

ringto any

th i n g i n t he re cord that might ar g uably support the appe al. A c op y of c ouns e l' s b ri e f sho uld

be fu rn ish e d th e ind ig e nt a

nd tim e a llo we d h im t o r a ise any points that he chooses[.]
An de rs v . Ca lif

or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (U.S. 1967).Ap pli c ant ne ve r re c e ive d a c op y of couns e l’ s An de rs brief, or an opportunity

to respond there to by raisingpoints in a pr o s e a pp e llate br ie f. Ha

be a s c or pu s r e lie f i s g ra

nte d a nd Ap pli c ant i s g ra nte d th e op po rt

un ity to e xami ne a

pp e llate c ouns e l’ s An de rs brief, and to file an out-of -time pr o
se appellate brief in his appe al from c ause n u m ber 97CR1742-83 from the 212 J udicial District th Court of Ga lve sto nCounty . F or purp os e s o f t

he Te xas Rul e s of Ap pe llate Pr oc e dure , a ll t ime lim its
s h a ll b e c a lc u late d

as if the An de rs brief ha d been f iled on the day

that the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that Applicant, should he desire to pr osecute an appe al, must take af firmative steps to f ile his pr o s e brief w ithin thi rty day s after

the mandate of this Court has issued. Ap p li c an t’ s r e ma in in gc la im s ar e d is mi s s e d
. Se e E x p a rte Torres , 9 4 3 S. W. 2 d 4 6 9 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1997). DO NO T PU B L I SH DEL I VERED: J une 11, 2008