Court Opinion

ID: 9372235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-19 23:11:22.42347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.905056
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                         OF TEXAS
                                        NO. WR-94,456-01

                 EX PARTE MUHAMMAD HAROON RASHID, Applicant

              ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
         CAUSE NO. 14-DCR-066280C HC-1 IN THE 458TH DISTRICT COURT
                         FROM FORT BEND COUNTY

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

                                           OPINION

       Applicant was convicted of engaging in organized criminal activity and sentenced to twenty

years’ imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Rashid v. State, No. 01-

19-00826-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jul. 1, 2021) (not designated for publication).

Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the

district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07.

       Applicant contends, among other things, that appellate counsel failed to notify him that his

direct appeal had been affirmed and that he had the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary

review. Appellate counsel filed an affidavit in response, as well as a copy of his letter to Applicant

dated July 10, 2021. Appellate counsel admits in his affidavit that he did not (1) advise Applicant
                                                                                                       2

he could file a pro se petition for discretionary review and (2) send his correspondence to Applicant

via certified mail as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

        Moreover, appellate counsel’s July 10th letter shows that he provided erroneous and

insufficient information to Applicant. First, he erroneously advised Applicant that a petition for

discretionary review must be filed with the Court of Appeals within thirty days after the mandate

issued. Because no motions for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration were filed, Applicant had

to file his petition with the clerk of this Court within thirty days after the day the Court of Appeals’s

judgment was rendered. TEX . R. APP . P. 68.2(a), 68.3. Second, appellate counsel failed to comply

with TEX . R. APP . P. 48.4 by not timely sending Applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested,

the required information and documentation within five days after the Court of Appeals’s opinion

was handed down on July 1, 2021. Lastly, appellate counsel failed to specifically inform Applicant

that he could file a pro se petition for discretionary review with this Court.

        Relief is granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Crow,

180 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).             Applicant may file an out-of-time petition for

discretionary review of the judgment of the First Court of Appeals in cause number 01-19-00826-

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. Applicant’s remaining claims are

dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

        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: February 15, 2023
Do not publish