## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O S. A P - 75, 908 & A P - 75, 909

EX PA R TE SA N TIAG O TE LL ES R O SA LE S, A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ONS F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N OS . 0 4 1 7 6 1 9 & 0 4 1 7 6 2 0 I N T HE 8 DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM HO PKI NS CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u an t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial co u rt t ransmit ted to this Court t hese a pplications for a

writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Appli cant wa s convicted of indece ncy wi th a c hil d a nd a tte mpt e d s e xua l a ssa

ult , a nd se nte nc e d to e ig ht a

nd six y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt,
r e s p e c t i v e l y. Ap pli c ant c on te nd s th a t his cou ns el re nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e be c a us e he fa ile d to timely file notices of

appea l. We remande d these applications to the trial court for finding s of fa ct and conc lusions of law.On re mand, the trial c ourt order ed counse l to submit an aff idavit in r esponse to Applica nt’s
c la im. F ind ingc ouns e l’ s a ff ida vit c re dib le , the tr ia l c ourt c on c lud e d th a t App lic ant c on su lte d w ith
c ouns e l and

wa s a dv ised of hi s ri ght to a pp e a l but f

a ile d to re qu e st the a

pp oin tme nt o f a

pp e llate counsel. The trial court r ecommende d that we de ny . W e d i s agr ee. “[T] rial counse l, retaine d or appointed, has the duty , obligation and responsibility to consult with and fully to advise his client
conce rning meaningand ef fec t of the judg ment rende red by the cour t, his rig ht to appea l f

rom that judgme nt, the necessity of giving notice of appea l and taking other steps to pursue an a ppeal . . . .” Ex parte Ax el , 757 S.W .2d 369, 374 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Acc ording to the rec ord, counse l was
re ta ine d b y

Ap p l i c a nt ’ s e m p l o y e r , wh o w a s “ no nc omm ita l a bo ut a n a pp e a l” de sp ite Ap pli c ant’ s w ish to appea l. Counsel’s duti e s , h o w e v e r, we re not de pendent on whe ther Applica nt’s employ er intende d to r etain counsel on appea l. “ [T] hat reta ined counsel did not intend to ha ndle the resultant appea l does not justify

his failing to a ssist hi s alleg edly indige nt client i n g iving notice of appe al.” Axe l , 757 S.W .2d at 374. We hold that counsel failed to timely file n o ti c es of a

ppeal. Ac cording ly , Applicant is entitled to the opportunity

to file out-of-time a

ppeals of the judg ments of conviction in Cause Nos. 0417619 and 0417620 from the 8 J udicial Court of Hopkins County
. Applicant is or dere d returne d to that th tim e a t w hic h he may give wri tt en no tic e s o f a pp e a l so that he may

the n, wi th t

he a id o f c ouns e l, obtain meaning ful appe als. All time lim its shall be calculated as if the sentence s had bee n imposed
on the date on

wh ic h th e mand a te of th is Court iss ue s. We h old

that, s ho uld

Ap pli c ant d e sir e to prosec ute appe als, he must take affirmative steps to file written notices of appea l in the trial court wi thi n 3 0 d ay s a ft e r t

he ma nd a te of thi s Co ur t is su e s. Applicant’s r emaining claims are dismiss ed. Ex parte Torres , 943 S.W. 2d 46 9 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1997).Deliver ed: April 30, 2008

Do No t Pu

bli sh