## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-92,513-02, WR- 92,513-03 AND WR-92,513-04

EX P ARTE MAX P ATRICK SADLER, App licant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. W02-74191-M(A ), W02-74192- M(A ) AND W02-74194-M (A)

IN THE 194T H DISTRICT COURT F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Ap p l i cant enter ed open pleas of g uilty in these three case s to two char g es of ag gra v at ed sexual assault of a child and one char g e of indece ncy with a child, and was sentenc ed to fifty y ear s’ imprisonment, thirty -five y ear s’ imprisonment, and ten y ear s’ imprisonment, to run concu rr en t ly with eac h other and with his twenty -y ea r s en t en ce for another indece ncy with a child char g e, to which he pleade d g uilty

at the same time as his pleas in these thre e ca ses. Appellate counsel filed

an Anders brief, and the Fifth Court of Appea ls a ffirme d Applicant’s convictions. Sadler v. State , Nos. 05-04-01814- CR, 05-04-01815- CR and 05-04-01817- CR (Tex. App. — Dallas Dec

. 14, 2005) (not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed these applications for writs of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded them to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M .2

P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that appellate counsel sent a copy o f t h e Anders brief to the wrong addre ss, despite having been timely informed o f Applicant’s new unit of assig nment. Applicant alleg es that he did not rec eive a copy of the brief until too late to file a pro se response brief, and that ap p el late counsel did not advise him of the proce ss for obtaining the rec ord and filing a pro s e response . Applicant also alleg es that appellate counsel failed to advise him of his rig ht to file a pro

se petition for discre tionary revie w. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Anders v. Calif

ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); Ex parte W ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Crow , 180 S.W .3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims. Specifica lly , appellate counsel shall state whether he rec eived the Fe bruar y 5, 2005, letter from Applicant notify ing him of his change o f ad d re s s , and whether appellate counsel sent copies of the Anders brief and other communications to the correc t addre ss. Appellate coun sel shall state whether he timely informed Applicant of his rig ht to file a pro se response brief, a nd of the proce ss for obtaining a copy of the

rec ord to r eview in or der to pr epar e such a brief. Appellate counsel shall state whether he advised Applicant of his rig ht to file a pro se petition for re view. I n developing the rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall dete rm i n e wh ether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to b e represente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to r epre sent him a t the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is a ppointed or3

reta ined, the trial c ourt shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The trial court shall first ensure that the habe as record is supplemented with copies of the appellate opinion, any communications from app el l at e counsel or the court of appea ls notify ing Applicant of his rig ht to revie w the rec ord and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, any communication from a

ppellate c ounsel notify ing A pplicant of his rig ht to file a pro se petition for discretionar

y revie w, and any other rele vant documents. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of l aw as t o whether appellate counsel timely advised Applicant of his rig ht to revie w the rec ord and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and whether he timely advised Applicant that he had a rig ht to file a pro se petition for discre tionary revie w. The trial court shall also deter mine whether Applicant would have timely filed a petition for discretionar y revie w but for appellate counsel’s alleg ed defic ient perf ormanc e. The trial court may make any other finding s and conclusions that it deems appr opriate in re sponse to Applicant’s c laims. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclus i o n s of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, af fidavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: MAY 5, 2021 Do not publish