Court Opinion

ID: 9930543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 07:12:31.879753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:19.501192
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                         OF TEXAS
                     NOS. WR-93,950-01, WR-93,950-02 & WR-93,950-03

                     EX PARTE BRANDON V. CARRAWAY, Applicant

              ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS
          CAUSE NOS. W17-75820-S(A), W17-75821-S(A), AND W17-75822-S(A)
            IN THE 282ND DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY

       Per curiam. Slaughter, J., filed a concurring opinion.

                                           OPINION

       A jury convicted Applicant of compelling prostitution of a person under the age of eighteen,

sexual assault of a child, and trafficking of a person under the age of eighteen for prostitution. The

jury assessed prison terms. Applicant appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the convictions.

Carraway v. State, Nos. 05-18-00367-CR, 05-18-00368-CR, & 05-18-00369-CR (Tex.

App.—Dallas Apr. 25, 2019) (not designated for publication). Through habeas counsel, Applicant

filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk

forwarded them to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.
                                                                                                    2

       In the -01 habeas application, Applicant claims his retained appellate counsel failed to inform

him of the appellate decision affirming the conviction for compelling prostitution (trial cause no. F-

17-75820-S; appeal no. 05-18-00367-CR), which he says denied him of his right to seek a petition

for discretionary review with this Court. In the -02 and -03 habeas applications, Applicant

complains that his retained appellate counsel did not attack the merits of the convictions for sexual

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 appellate counsel should have filed briefs in

accordance with Anders v. State of Cal., 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), withdrawn from representation

on these two appeals, and permitted Applicant to file pro se briefs regarding the convictions.

       Appellate counsel has provided a response. The trial court has made findings and

recommends that this Court grant habeas relief. The State has not objected. The trial court’s

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and applicable law. Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Miller

v. State, 548 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); 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 granted. Regarding the -01 habeas application and Applicant’s appeal of the

compelling prostitution conviction, Applicant may file an out-of-time petition for discretionary

review of the judgment of the Fifth Court of Appeals in appeal number 05-18-00367-CR. Should

Applicant decide to file a petition for discretionary review, he must file it with this Court within

thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate. Regarding the -02 and -03 habeas applications and

Applicant’s appeals of the sexual assault and trafficking convictions, Applicant may file out-of-time

pro se briefs with the Fifth Court of Appeals in appeal numbers 05-18-00368-CR and 05-18-00369-
                                                                                                  3

CR. The Fifth Court of Appeals shall issue any necessary orders within ten days from the date of

this Court’s mandate.

       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: January 31, 2024
Do not publish