Court Opinion

ID: 9391139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-01 01:10:55.251934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.048080
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                       OF TEXAS

                                   NO. WR-94,650-01

              EX PARTE EDIBERTO ANTONIO DELEON, Applicant

            ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
            CAUSE NO. 83201-CR IN THE 149TH DISTRICT COURT
                           BRAZORIA COUNTY

       SLAUGHTER, J., filed a concurring opinion.

                               CONCURRING OPINION

       I join in the Court’s decision to grant Applicant postconviction habeas relief in the

form of an out-of-time petition for discretionary review. I write separately to emphasize

the importance of appellate counsel’s duty to provide timely and accurate information to

clients regarding their right to file a pro se PDR following the resolution of their direct

appeals. It appears that appellate counsel here failed to inform Applicant of the court of

appeals’ ruling on his direct appeal, thereby depriving him of his ability to pursue review

in this Court. This situation happens far too frequently and is a troubling sign that some
                                                                                   DeLeon - 2

appellate attorneys are failing to properly communicate with their clients (particularly those

who are incarcerated) regarding their right to seek discretionary review.

I.     Background

       Following Applicant’s conviction for murder in 2019, appellate counsel was

appointed to represent him for his direct appeal. The court of appeals affirmed Applicant’s

conviction on August 24, 2021. DeLeon v. State, No. 01-19-00695-CR, 2021 WL 3728881

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication). But, Applicant alleges that appellate counsel never informed him of the court

of appeals’ decision, thereby foreclosing Applicant’s ability to timely pursue a pro se PDR

with this Court. In fact, Applicant alleges that it was not until September 4, 2022, that he

learned that his direct appeal was denied. And that information was provided to him by a

family member who checked on the status of his appeal through the court’s website.

       In response to Applicant’s allegations, appellate counsel filed an affidavit stating

that it was his customary procedure to send a copy of the appellate court’s decision to the

defendant upon notification that an opinion had been issued, along with “comments

concerning the decision and what the defendant may do in accordance with the decision.”

Despite this customary procedure, appellate counsel concedes that after reviewing all of

his notes, he is “unable to find any evidence that [he] sent to [Applicant] notice that his

case had been affirmed and notice that he could appear pro se.” Appellate counsel further

recognizes that Applicant should be entitled to “take advantage of all appellate rights.”

II.    Appellate Counsel’s Duties Under the Appellate Rules
                                                                                    DeLeon - 3

       Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to the effective assistance of

counsel. U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984).

This right to effective assistance extends to the first direct appeal. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S.

387, 395–96 (1985); Ward v. State, 740 S.W.2d 794, 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).

Although a criminal defendant has no right to the assistance of counsel for purposes of

actually pursuing discretionary review, his appellate counsel still has the duty to advise

him regarding his right to file a pro se PDR. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 411 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (detailing appellate counsel’s duties to clients upon denial of relief on

appeal). This obligation is codified in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure:

       In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall,
       within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy
       of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s
       right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68. This
       notification shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to the
       defendant at his last known address. The attorney shall also send the court of
       appeals a letter certifying his compliance with this rule and attaching a copy
       of the return receipt within the time for filing a motion for rehearing. The
       court of appeals shall file this letter in its record of the appeal.
TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (emphasis added).

       Here, appellate counsel clearly failed to comply with the requirements of the

appellate rules when he neglected to send Applicant a copy of the court of appeals’ opinion,

along with notification of Applicant’s right to file a pro se PDR. Unfortunately, counsel’s

failure to properly advise Applicant has deprived Applicant of his opportunity to pursue an

entire proceeding. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

III.   Appellate Counsel’s Duties Under the Rules of Professional Conduct
                                                                                     DeLeon - 4

       More generally, I also note here that the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional

Conduct require lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of any case developments

and to effectively communicate with their clients in a manner that permits the clients to

make informed decisions related to their cases. Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R.

1.03(a)–(b). Further, “in representing a client, a lawyer shall not[] neglect a legal matter

entrusted to the lawyer.” Id. R. 1.01(b)(1).

       Ultimately, appellate counsel’s failure to adequately communicate with clients

about the status of their direct appeals is unfair to clients and falls short of the standard for

professionalism set forth in the disciplinary rules. Not only this, but it results in

unnecessary burdens on the courts and causes judicial inefficiency that wastes taxpayer

dollars. I certainly understand and acknowledge that we are all human beings who make

mistakes. But, based on the sheer volume of writ applications this Court sees annually in

which this or similar problems arise, I feel that it is my ethical obligation to bring attention

to this issue so that attorneys may be reminded of the effect of failing to properly

communicate with their clients. See Tex. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 3(D)(2) (“A judge

who receives information clearly establishing that a lawyer has committed a violation of

the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct should take appropriate action.”). It

is my hope that, by bringing attention to this issue, appellate attorneys will be motivated to

take steps to ensure that such situations do not occur in the future.

       With these comments, I join the Court’s opinion.

Filed: April 26, 2023

Publish