Court Opinion

ID: 9838985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-10 23:09:30.112472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.165936
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                         OF TEXAS
              NOS. WR-94,958-01, 94,958-02, 94,958-03, 94,958-04, & 94,958-05

                         EX PARTE CARLOS LOPEZ, JR., Applicant

           ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS
   CAUSE NOS. 17FC-2196-F(1), 17FC-1461-F(1), 17FC-1118-F(1), 17FC-0911-F(1), &
              CR16003452-F(1) IN THE 214TH DISTRICT COURT
                          FROM NUECES COUNTY

       Per curiam.

                                           OPINION

       Applicant was convicted of burglary of a habitation, two offenses of burglary of a building,

two offenses of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and two counts of evading arrest with a vehicle.

Applicant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on the burglary of a habitation, two years’

imprisonment on the burglary of a building offenses and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle

offenses, and ten years’ imprisonment on the two counts of evading arrest with a vehicle. The

Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed Applicant’s appeal. Lopez v. State, Nos. 13-18-00112-CR,

13-18-00111-CR, 13-18-00110-CR, 13-18-00109-CR, 13-18-00108-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi

Jan. 24, 2019) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed these applications for writs of habeas
                                                                                                      2

corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded them to this Court. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

        Applicant contends that his trial (revocation) and appellate counsel were ineffective because

trial counsel failed to object to the trial court’s improper cumulation order and appellate counsel

failed to raise the issue on direct appeal. Based on the record, the trial court has determined, and the

State agrees, that both counsels’ performances were deficient and that Applicant was prejudiced.

        Relief is granted. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The judgments in cause

numbers 17FC-2196-F, 17FC-1461-F, 17FC-1118-F, 17FC-0911-F, and CR16003452-F in the 214th

District Court of Nueces County are modified as follows:

        •       The sentence in Cause Number 17FC-0911F shall run concurrently with the

                sentences in Cause Numbers 17FC-2196F and 17FC-1118F;

        •       The sentence in Cause Number 17FC-2196F shall run concurrently with the

                sentences in Cause Numbers 17FC-0911F, CR16003452-F, and 17FC-1461F;

        •       The sentence in Cause Number 17FC-1118F shall run concurrently with the sentence

                in Cause Number 17FC-0911F;

        •       The sentence in Cause Number CR16003452-F shall run concurrently with the

                sentences in Cause Numbers 17FC-2196F and 17FC-1461F. The sentence in this

                cause shall begin when the punishment in Cause Number 17FC-0911F has ceased to

                operate; and

        •       The sentence in Cause Number 17FC-1461F shall run concurrently with the

                sentences in Cause Numbers 17FC-2196F and CR16003452-F. The sentence in this

                cause shall begin when the punishment in Cause Number 17FC-0911F has ceased to
                                                                                                  3

              operate.

       Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: September 6, 2023
Do not publish