## 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-93,950-01, WR-93,950-02 & WR-93,950-03

EX P A RTE BRANDON V. CARRAWAY, Applicant
ON AP P LICATIONS F OR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. W17-75820-S(A), W17-75821-S(A), AND W17-75822-S(A) IN THE 282ND DISTRICT COURT F ROM DALLAS COUNTY
Per curiam . Slaughter, J., filed a concurring opinion. O P I N I O N
A jury convicted Applicant of compelling prostitution o f a person under the ag e of eig hteen,
sex ual assault of a child, and trafficking of a person under the ag e of e ig hteen for p rostitution. The jury assessed prison terms. Applicant appealed, a nd the appellate court affirmed the c onvictions. Carraway v . State , Nos. 05-18-00367-CR, 05-18-00368-CR, & 05-18-00369-CR ( Tex
. App.—Dallas Apr. 25, 2019) (not d esig n ated f o r publication). Throug h habeas counsel, Applicant filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, a nd the district clerk forwarded them to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07.2

I n the -01 habeas application, Applicant claims his retained appellate counsel failed to i n f o r m him of the appellate decision affirming the conviction for compelling prostitution (trial c ause no. F
17-75820-S; appeal no. 0 5-18-00367-CR), which h e say s denied him of his rig ht to seek a petition for discretio n a ry r eview with this Court. I n the

- 02 and -03 habeas applications, Applicant complains that his r etained appellate counsel did not attack the merits of the convictions for sex ual assault (trial cause no. F -17-75821-S; appeal no. 05-18-00368-CR) and trafficking (trial cause no. F -17-75822-S; appeal no. 05-18-00369-CR), so appe l l a t e counsel should have filed briefs in accordance with A nders v. State o f Cal. , 386 U.S. 738, 7 44 ( 1967), w ithdrawn f rom representation on these two appeals, and permitted Applicant to file pro se briefs reg ardingthe convictions. A p pellate counsel has p rovided a response. The trial court has made find i n gs a n d recommends that this Court g rant habeas relief. T h e State has n ot o bject e d
. T h e trial court’s finding s a

nd r e c o m m en dations are supported b y the record and applicable law. S trickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 6 68 (1984); Ex parte W ilson , 9 5 6 S.W
. 2d 25 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1997); Miller

v. State , 5 48 S.W .3d 4 97 (Tex
. Crim. App. 2 018); In re Schulman , 252 S.W .3d 403 (Tex
. Crim. App. 2008); Ex parte Crow , 180 S.W
. 3d 135 (Tex . Crim. App. 2005). Relief is g ranted. Reg arding the -01 habeas application and Applicant’s appeal of the compellin g p r o s titution conviction, Applicant may file an out-of-time petition f o r discretionary review of the judgment of the F ifth Court of Appeals in appeal number 05-18-00367-CR. Should Applicant decide to f

ile a petition for discretio n a r y review, he must file it w ith this Court within thirty day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Reg arding the -02 and

- 03 h abeas applications and Applicant’s appeals of the sex ual assault and trafficking convictions, Applicant may file out-of-time pro se briefs w ith the F ifth Court of Appeals in appeal numbers 05-18-00368-CR and 05-18-00369-3

CR. The F ifth Court of Appeals shall issue any necessary orders within ten day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be s e n t t o t h e T e xa s D e p a

r t m e nt of Criminal J u stice–Correctional I nstitutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: J anuary

31, 2024 Do not publish