Court Opinion

ID: 9392822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-08 00:12:44.983278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:49.145524
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                       OF TEXAS

                                   NO. WR-94,570-01

                    EX PARTE FRANCISCO VALLES, Applicant

          ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
       CAUSE NO. 20150D02069-409-1 IN THE 409TH DISTRICT COURT
                          EL PASO 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 continue

emphasizing 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. Here, Appellate counsel failed to inform Applicant of this right,

thereby depriving Applicant of his ability to pursue review in this Court. This situation

happens far too frequently and is a troubling sign that some appellate attorneys are failing
                                                                                   Valles - 2

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 aggravated robbery in 2018, appellate counsel

filed Applicant’s direct appeal. On January 17, 2020, the court of appeals issued an opinion

affirming Applicant’s conviction. Valles v. State, No. 08-18-00061-CR, 2020 WL 255746

(Tex. App.—El Paso Jan. 17, 2020, no pet.) (not designated for publication). In his instant

postconviction habeas application, Applicant alleges that, on January 21, 2020, appellate

counsel mailed him a copy of the court of appeals’ opinion but failed to notify Applicant

of his right to file a pro se PDR. In support of his claim, Applicant submitted a copy of the

letter he received, which states in its entirety: “Enclosed in this mailing is the Judgment

and Opinion from the 8th Court of Appeals, for your records. Should you have any questions

please feel free to contact our office.” Applicant also submitted records from the Eighth

Court of Appeals showing that counsel failed to submit any letter certifying his compliance

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4, which governs counsel’s obligation to

provide notice to his client under these circumstances.

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

that the prison had “denied [him] approval to make phone calls to [Applicant]” because his

office uses “an internet telephon[e] provider, which the institution saw as a security risk.”

Counsel alleges that he informed Applicant of this problem and received authorization

from Applicant to communicate through his uncle. Counsel affirms that he sent a letter to

Applicant on January 21, 2020, containing a copy of the court of appeals’ opinion. He
                                                                                      Valles - 3

states that he received a letter from Applicant on February 3rd asking about the “next step.”

Instead of responding to Applicant in writing, counsel states that he “left a voicemail for

[Applicant’s] uncle . . . and told him that the deadline to file a PDR is February 16, 2020.”

A few hours later, counsel spoke with Applicant’s uncle on the phone and, again, notified

him of the filing deadline. 1

          In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the habeas court concluded that

Applicant was adequately informed of his right to file a pro se PDR and recommended

denial of relief. The court based its recommendation on the fact that the trial court’s “Notice

to Defendant of Right of Appeal,” dated June 5, 2018, contained a clause stating that

Applicant has a right to file a pro se petition with this Court. The court also stated that

appellate counsel:

          took further steps after [Applicant’s] conviction was affirmed to, in a timely
          manner, provide [Applicant] with notice that his conviction had been
          affirmed, provide him with a copy of the opinion and judgment affirming his
          conviction, and to get word to him of the date by which he had to file his pro
          se PDR.

II.       Appellate Counsel’s Duties Under the Appellate Rules

          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

1
    The record does not contain an affidavit from Applicant’s uncle.
                                                                                                   Valles - 4

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).

        Appellate counsel failed to comply with the requirements of the appellate rules.

Counsel’s duty is not discharged by merely passing off the obligation to inform his client

to a family member. Instead, counsel “must ensure that his client has been informed of his

right to file a pro se PDR . . . .” Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 (emphasis added). 2 Further,

based on counsel’s affidavit, it is not even clear that he adequately informed Applicant’s

uncle of the right to file a pro se PDR; instead, he explains only that he informed the uncle

of the filing deadline.

2
 A family member is not counsel’s client and should not be treated as such. Even though counsel claims to
have had Applicant’s permission to communicate with Applicant’s uncle regarding the case, discussing
client matters with a family member can lead to breaches of attorney-client confidentiality. See Tex.
Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.05(b)(1)(ii), (c)(1)–(2) (a lawyer shall not knowingly reveal a
client’s confidential information to anyone else without client authorization or consent); see also id. R.
1.08(e) & cmt 5 (any arrangement in which fees are paid for by a third party must conform with the
attorney’s duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the client). Moreover, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
48.4 is unambiguous in providing that counsel must notify his client in writing of the client’s right to file a
pro se PDR and to certify such notification in writing to the court of appeals.
                                                                                    Valles - 5

       The habeas court erroneously found that Applicant was adequately informed of his

rights by relying, in part, on the trial court’s “Notice to Defendant of Right to Appeal” from

two years before the court of appeals issued its opinion. The inclusion of this boilerplate

language in that document does not absolve appellate counsel of his duty to directly advise

Applicant of his right to file a pro se PDR after the court of appeals issues its opinion. As

Rule 48.4 clearly states, appellate counsel must: (1) send a copy of the court of appeals’

opinion and notify his client of his right to pursue a pro se PDR “within five days after the

opinion is handed down;” (2) send that notification via certified mail, with a return receipt

requested; and (3) send the court of appeals a letter certifying compliance with Rule 48.4.

Counsel failed to fulfill these obligations. Unfortunately, counsel’s failure to abide by Rule

48.4 deprived Applicant of his opportunity to pursue an entire proceeding. Ex parte Owens,

206 S.W.3d 670, 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (noting that counsel’s failure to inform a

client of his right to pursue a petition for discretionary review “deprive[d] him of an entire

proceeding”).

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

       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).
                                                                                      Valles - 6

       Ultimately, appellate counsel’s failure to properly 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: May 3, 2023

Publish