We have pr eviously rec og nized that, under the e x plicit terms of Article 11.07, w e do 1 “not have jurisdiction to consider an a pplication for [a] writ of habea s corpus . . . until the felony judgme nt from which r elief is soug ht becomes f inal.” Ex parte J

ohnson , 12 S.W .3d 472, 473 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). 

## IN THE COUR T OF CRIMINA L APPEALS

OF TEX AS
N o. A P - 75, 804

EX PA R TE N O LA N H A R R EL L W EB B , A ppl i c ant

AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US FROM THE 2 9 9 t h DI S TRI CT CO URT

TRAVI S CO UNTY

H OL C OM B , J . , d eli v er ed th e o p inion o f the u n a n im o u s C o u rt.
We filed and set Nola

n Har rell W ebb’s post-c onviction application for a writ of habe as corpus in orde r to deter

mine whether

his conviction is final for the purposes of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Proc edure and, thus, whether w e have jurisdiction to consider the mer its of his a pp lic a tio n. We h old

that We bb ’s c on vic tio n is fi na l, a nd we de ny the re lie f t

hat he re qu e sts
. 1 On J uly 26, 2000, a Tra

vis County

jury found Webb g uilty

of murder

under Tex as Penal Cod e § 19. 0 2 ( b ) ( 1 )
. T h e t r i a l c o u rta s s e s s e d W e b b ’ s p u n i s h m e n ta ti mp r i s o n m e n tf o r f i f t y y e a rs .WEBB - 2

A “mandate” is an a

ppellate c ourt’s off

icial notice, dire cted to the c ourt below, a dvising 2 it o f t he a pp e llate c ourt ’s de c isi on

and dir e c tin g it t o h a ve the a

pp e llate c ourt ’s jud g me nt d uly rec og nized, obey ed, and e x ecute d. See 5 Am.J ur.2d Appellate Rev iew §§ 725 & 733 ( 2007). I f a de fe nd ant h a s th e ri g ht, un de r s ta te law, to a pp e a l f ro m hi s c on vic tio n –

and , in 3 Te xas, a de fe nd ant d oe s h a ve su c h a ri g ht – the n th e Du e Pr oc e ss C la us e of the F ourt e e nth Amendment g uara

ntees the r ight to counse l in the first appea l of rig ht. Do ug las v . Ca lif or nia , 372 U.S. 353, 357-58 (1963). This a ppellate- level rig ht to counsel compre hends the rig ht to the eff ective a ssistance of c ounsel. Evitts v. Lucey , 469 U.S. 387, 396-97 (1985). Appellate c ounsel has a duty to inform his client of the re sult of the direc t appea l and 4 the ava ilability

of discre tionary

revie w. Ex parte W

ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25, 27 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) Webb appea led, and, on November 29, 2001, the Third Court of Appe als aff irmed his conviction. W e bb v . S tat e , No. 03-00-00613- CR (Tex.App.–Austi n, Nov. 29, 2000, no pet.) (not desig nated f or pub l i c a t i o n )
. O n F e b r

u ar y 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e c l e r

k o f t h e c o u rt o f a

p p e a l s , a c t i n g p u r s u a nt t o Ru le 18 .1 (a )( 1) of

the Te xas R

ule s o f A pp e llate Pr oc e dure , is su e d tha t court ’s mand a te in We bb ’s c a se
and se nt t hat ma nd a te to t he tr ia l c ourt , th e re by no tif y ing the tr ia l c ourt that Web b’ s a pp e llate pr oc e ss ha d c on c lud e d a

nd that hi s c on vic tio n h a d b e c ome fi na l. 2 On Novembe r 29, 2005, Webb f iled a post-convic tion application for a writ of habe as cor

pus in the trial court. That court then for war ded the a

pplication to this C ourt pursuant to Article 11.07, § 3. By that application, Webb soug ht the rig ht to file an out-of- time, pr o s e petition for dis c re tio nary revi ew (PD R) . H e argue d th a t he ha d f a ile d to fi le a

tim e ly PDR be c a us e of his
a pp e llate c ouns e l’ s in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e . Mo re sp e c if

ic a lly , We bb argue d that he ha d f a ile d to fi le 3 a timely PDR beca

use hi s appellate counsel had not timely notified him that the court of a ppeals ha d aff irmed his convictio n an d t h at h e had the rig ht to seek discre tionary revie w of the c ourt of appea ls’s decision. 4 The trial c ourt, based on a n aff idavit from appe llate counse l, rec o m m en d ed t hat we g rantWEBB - 3

We gr anted Webb an e x tension of time in which to file his PDR. The habea s rec ord 5 does not reve al the natur e of the g rounds for r eview c ontained in Webb’s PDR, but their nature n e e d n o tc o n c e r

nu s t o d ay. See Ky les v. W

hitley , 5 14 U. S. 4 19 (1 99 5) ; Brady v. M aryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 6 Webb the relief

that he soug ht. On April 12, 2006, we a cce pted the trial c ourt’s re commendation and gra nted Webb leave to file an out-of -time PDR. Ex parte W ebb , N o. AP-75,380 (Tex.Crim.App.–April 12, 2006) (not desig nated f or publ ication). I n our opinion, we orde red Webb “re turned to the point at which he can file a meaning ful petition f or discretionar

y revie w.” Ib id
. We also ord er ed t h at “all time limits [i n the applica ble Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e] shall be
c a lc ul a te d a s if

the Court

of Ap pe a ls’ de c isi on

ha d b e e n r e nd e re d o n th e da y the mand a te of

thi s Court issues.” Ib id
. On May 8, 2006, the cler k of this Court, acting pursuant to Rule 18.1(b), issued
our man d a te in

We b b ’ s c a s e an d

s e n t t h a t m an d a te to th e c o u r

t o f a p p e a ls , th e r e b y

n o ti f y in g that court that Webb’s a

ppellate pr ocess ha d been r einstated. On Aug ust 3, 2006, W ebb filed his out-of-time P DR in the court of appeals. That cour t then 5 forwa rded the PDR a

nd appellate rec ord to this Court. On September 27, 2006, we ref used Webb’s PDR. In re W

ebb , No. PD-0715-06 ( Tex.Crim
. Ap p . – Sept. 26, 2006) (not desig nated f or publication). On Aug ust 31, 2007, Webb filed a second post-conviction application for a wr it of habea s corpus in the tria l co u rt
. T h at cour t then forwa

rded the application to us, along with that court’s fi nd ing s of fa c t and c on c lus ion s of law. I n his a pp lic a tio n, wh ic h is b e fo re us no w, Web b s e e ks a new tria l on the g round of pr osecutoria l misconduct. More spec ifically , Webb argue s t h at the prosec utor (1) withheld ex culpatory evidenc e and (2) “duringcross-e x amination of [W ebb at the

6 g uilt st ag e of] trial, made [false] impeac hment acc usations an d i m p roper ly acc used applica

nt ofWEBB - 4

having just rece ntly

fabr icated his self

-def ense story .” Th e tr ia l c o u rt, in it s f

in d in g s o f f

a c t an d c o n c lu s io n s o f la w , s tate s th a t: ( 1) Webb’s
a pp lic a tio n “ is pr e ma tur e ” be c a us e his c on vic tio n is no t fi na l; (2 ) his c on vic tio n is no t fi na l be c a us e the c le rk of the c ourt of a pp e a ls d id n ot i ssu e a

ne w m and a te a ft e r w e re fu se d h is o ut- of -t ime PDR ; and (3) his prosecutoria l-misconduct claims ar e not cog nizable on habea s, in a ny event, beca

use he
c ou ld h a ve ra ise d th e m on dir e c t a pp e a l. On De c e mbe r 1 2, 20 07 , w e or de re d We bb ’s a pp lic a tio n f

ile d a nd se t f or su bmiss ion “ to de te rm ine wh e the r a c on vic tio n is fi na l fo r art ic le 11 .0 7 ha be a s c or pu s purp os e s wh e n the ri g ht t o file an out-of-time P DR has been g rante d, such a PDR has been filed but ref used by this Court, and the c ourt of a pp e a ls n e ith e r wi thd

re w the or ig ina l ma

nd a te no r i ssu e d a

ne w o ne a ft e r t

he ou t- of -t ime PDR wa s ref

used.” Ex parte W

ebb , No. AP -75,804 (Tex .Crim.App.–Dec. 12, 2007) (not desig nated for publication). We also ordere d the par ties to brief this issue. I n h is b ri e f t o th is C ourt , Webb argue s tha t, “ sin c e iss ua nc e of the mand a te is a

min ist e ri a l, non-discre tionary

act, we should look [when determining the finality of a c onviction] to the date the
m an d a t e w a s s u

p p o s e d t o h a v e i s s u e d , n o t t h e d a t e u p o n w h i c h t h e p a

p e r m an d a t e [ w a s a c tu a l l y] issued.” He argues further that, “in the instant ca se, the mandate should be dee med to have issued ten day s after

September 27, 2006 [ the date this Court refused his out-of- time PDR] , or Oc tober 7, 2006, thus confer

ring jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the w rit applicatio n fi l ed Aug ust 31, 2007.” I n its response brie f, the State a rg ues that: (1) f

or the purpose s of Article 11.07, a convic tion fr om w hic h a

de fe nd ant h a s a

pp e a le d b e c ome s fina l on ly wh e n th e c ourt

of a pp e a ls i ssu e s it s
mand a te ; (2 ) the c ourt of a pp e a ls’ s mand a te in thi s c a se , iss ue d on F e br ua ry 27 , 2 00 2, “ be c a meWEBB - 5

I t is also the rule that a c onviction from which a n appea l has bee n taken is final f or the 7 purposes of punishment-e nhance ment when the c lerk of the court of a ppeals issues that cour

t’s mandate. Se e Be al v . S

tat e , 91 S.W .3d 794, 796 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). ineffe ctive whe n this Court g rante d [W ebb leave to file an] out-of-time PDR”; and ( 3) the c ourt of appea ls “must re-issue [another ma ndate] to conclude [Webb’s] appeal and g ive t h i s Court jurisdiction pursuant to article 11.07.” As we no t ed previously , on November 29, 2001, the cour

t of appe als aff

irmed Webb’s
c on vic tio n in an unp ub lis he d o pin ion . O n F e br ua ry 27 , 2 00 2, the c le rk

of the c ourt of a pp e a ls issued that court’s ma

ndate a nd sent it to the trial court, there by notify ing the trial court that Webb’s appellate proce ss ha d conclude d and that his c onviction had bec ome final. On A pril 12, 2006, we g rante d Webb leave to f

ile an out-of- time PDR. On May 8, 2006, the cler k of this Court issued our
mand a te and

se nt i t to the c ourt

of a pp e a ls, the re by

no tif y ingthat c ou

rt that We bb ’s a

pp e llate pr oc e ss ha d b e e n r e ins ta te d. Th e n, on Se pte mbe r 2 7, 20 06 , w e re fu se d We bb ’s ou t- of -t ime PDR
. I s W ebb ’s c on vic tio n n owfi na l f or the purp os e s o f A rt ic le 11 .0 7? We c on c lud e that it is. I t has long been the rule that a conviction from whic h an appe al has be en take n i s final for the purposes of A rticle 11.07 whe n the cler k of the c ourt of appe als issues that court’s ma ndate. See E

x parte Johnson , 12 S.W. 3d 47 2, 47 3 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Ex parte Coronado , 617 S.W .2d 265, 26 6 (T e x.Crim .Ap p. 19 81); Car te r v . S tat e , 5 1 0 S. W. 2 d

3 2 3 , 3 2 4 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 7 4 )
. We 7

a dh e re to th at rul e today . T he re fo re , We bb ’s c on vic tio n b e c a me fi na l f or the purp os e s o f A rt ic le 11 .0 7 w he n, on F e br

ua ry 27 , 2 00 2, the c le rk

of the c ourt of a pp e a ls i ssu e d th a t c ourt ’s mand a te in Webb’s case . When, on May 8, 2006, the cler

k of this Court issued our ma n d at e t o t h e cour t of appea ls, thereby

no t i fy i n g t h at cour

t that Webb’s appellate pr ocess ha d been r einstated, the e ffe ct of our mandate, with respe ct to the finality require ment of Article 11.07, was not to rende r the c ourtWEBB - 6

of a pp e a ls’ s ma

nd a te ine ff

e c tiv e bu t r a the r m e re ly

to h old the c ourt of a pp e a ls’ s ma

nd a te te mpo ra

ri ly dormant until such time as we could di spose of Webb’s out-of-time P DR. The court of appe als was
no t r e qu ir e d to r e c a ll it s ma n d a te o r h a v e it s c le r

k is s u e a n e w ma

n d a te o n c e w e r e f

used Webb’s PDR
. Havingconclude d that Webb’s conviction is final for the purposes of Article 11.07, we now turn to the merits of his application for habea s corpus re lief. As we noted pre viously , Webb seeks
a new trial on the basis of prose cutorial misconduct. Our revie w of the r ecor d reve als, howeve r, that the fa ctual base s for Webb’s c l ai ms were known to him at the time of trial and, ther efor e, that he could have raised suc h claims on direc t appea l. That being the ca se, Webb’s cla ims, as the trial court noted, ar e not cog nizable on habea s. Ex parte Townsend , 137 S.W .3d 79, 81 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). Acc ording ly , we de ny

the re lief re quested.

DEL I VERED NOV EMBER 26, 2008 PUBL I SH