## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

N O . A P - 76, 215

EX PA R TE R U SSEL L K EV I N TH O M PSO N , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 0 3 CR0 7 3 3 I N T HE 1 2 2 ND DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM GA LVES TON CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce 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 convicted of ag g ravated sexual

a ssa ult of a c hil d a nd se nte nc e d to e ig hte e n y e a rs ’ i mpr iso nme nt. Th e F ourt e e nth Court of Ap pe a ls aff irmed his conviction. Tho mp so n v . S tat e , No. 14-05-01137- CR (Te x . App.–Houston [14 Dist.] th May 8, 2007, pet re f’d, untimely filed)

. Applicant conte nds that his appellate counsel re ndere d ineff e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e b e c a u s e counsel filed an untimely

petition for discre tionary revie w, depr iving him of the oppor tunity to seek2

discretionar

y revie w of the a

ppellate c ourt’s dec ision. Appellate c ounsel filed an a ffidavit wit h t h e t ri al cour t. I n his affidavit, appellate c ounsel blames his f

ailure to f ile a timely

PDR on Applicant’s wife’ s alleg ed inability to arra ng e a me eting with the complainant so that counsel could obtain a rec antation. Counsel states that “ther e wa s very littl e cha nce . . . of success on appea l without that reca ntation.” B ased on that affidavit, the trial court has sig ned finding s of fa ct and conclusions of law that Applicant’s c laim “has no leg al merit” a nd

rec ommended that re lief be de nied. We d isa g re e . I f c ouns e l ha s a g re e d to pr e pa re a nd fi le a pe tit ion fo r dis c re tio na ry re vie w, thi s is not a valid rea son to delay prepa ration and filing of a P DR. A recantation made after the deadline for a motion for new t rial could not be par t of the appe llate re cord. See Fa rri s v . S tat e , 712 S.W .2d 512, 515-16 n.3 (Te x . Crim. App. 1986) (noting that the appellate record c annot be suppleme nted with evidenc e not develope d during trial proce eding s and that new ly available evidenc e ca

n only be prese nted to an appe l l at e cour t throug h a motion for new trial hea ring or in a ha

beas c orpus proce eding ). F urthermor e, “newly available ” evide nce obta ined during the pende ncy of a dire ct appea l or PDR would not be releva nt to any decision made conce rning a PDR, which only revie ws the dec ision of a cour

t of appe als. T EX . R. A PP . P. 66.3. “ Al tho ug h th e re is n o r ig ht t o disc re tio na ry re vie w, a n a

pp e lla nt o rd ina ri ly ha s a ri g ht t o f ile a PDR in an attempt to persua de us to exercise our discretion.” Ex parte Crow , 180 S.W .3d 135, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Appellate counsel’s conduct c aused the deprivation of the PDR procee ding to which Applicant was e ntitled. Base d on our indepe ndent re view of the rec ord, we find that Applicant wa s entitled to be in the appe llate proc ess and w o uld have timely filed a PDR, abse nt counsel’s c onduct. Id. a t 13 9. We c on c lud e , th e re fo re , th a t App lic a nt i s e nti tle d to the op po rt un ity3

to file a n o u t- o f

- ti me p e ti ti o n f

o r d is c r e ti o n a r

y r e v ie w o f th e ju d g me n t o f th e F o u rte e n th Co u rt of Appea ls in Cause No. 1 4 -05-01137- CR that aff irmed his conviction in Case No. 03CR0733 from the 122nd

J udicial Dist ri ct C ourt of Galveston County . Applicant shall file his petition for dis c re tio na

ry re vie w w iththe F ourt e e nth Court of Ap pe a ls within 30 da y s of the date on

wh ic h th is Court ’s mand a te iss ue s.

Deliver ed: September

16, 2009 Do no t pu bli sh