Ex parte Rocha, 44393
Decision Date | 28 June 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 44393,44393 |
Citation | 482 S.W.2d 169 |
Parties | Ex parte Arturo ROCHA. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John W. Clark, Edinburg (Court appointed), for appellant.
Oscar B. McInnis, Dist. Atty., and Thomas P. Beery, Asst. Dist. Atty., Edinburg and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding under Article 11.07, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., and in accordance with Ex parte Young, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 824, in which the petitioner seeks his release from confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. Petitioner was convicted for the offense of rape in Cause No. 9683 in the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County on October 5, 1964, and punishment was assessed at life imprisonment. Review of that judgment by appeal was not sought.
In his application for the writ, petitioner alleges that his conviction is invalid 'because applicant's court appointed counsel refused to comply with applicant's request that a timely notice of appeal be entered with the record at the time of sentencing . . . to preserve applicant's right to receive a direct review of his conviction by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.'
A hearing was held on petitioner's application before the Hon. Magnus F. Smith, Judge Presiding, 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County. The record of such hearing reflects that petitioner was seventeen years old at the time of his trial, was indigent, and was represented by two court-appointed attorneys, one of whom is now deceased. Petitioner and the remaining attorney were the sole witnesses testifying at the hearing. Petitioner testified that he requested that the attorney who is now deceased appeal his case and was told The record contains two letters written by petitioner to the attorney and the attorney's responses thereto. In none of these letters is an appeal mentioned. In one of these letters, petitioner requested that an investigation be made as to why a second party who had been involved in the crime had received a sentence of only five years. In the other letter, petitioner requested the attorney to guarantee favorable action from the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The remaining attorney did not know anything concerning petitioner's allegation.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that: (1) petitioner was indigent at the time of his trial; (2) he was capably represented by two court-appointed attorneys; (3) these attorneys discussed the question of appeal with both petitioner and his parents; (4) no one told petitioner that he would have to wait three years in order to appeal; (5) a statement of facts was available but was not requested; (6) no statement of facts is available now; (7) the matter of requesting a statement of facts In forma pauperis was explained to appellant's parents; and (8) that appellant acted upon the recommendation of his parents and did not request a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Abron v. State, s. 51400
...to show 'good cause' for granting the relief requested. See Ex parte Young, 479 S.W.2d 45 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ex parte Rocha, 482 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). The appellant having failed to establish good cause for perfecting the belated appeals, the appeals are 1 The written waiver of appe......
-
Ex parte Garcia
...stands instead for the proposition that sworn pleadings must be substantiated by the record in order for relief to be granted. In Empey and Rocha, on the other hand, the habeas court recommended that relief be denied.19 The applicants in those cases were attempting to persuade us to grant r......
-
Green v. State, 48385
...Arnold v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 345 (venue proven and jury properly impaneled and sworn are presumed); Ex parte Rocha, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 169 (regularity of judgment presumed on habeas corpus); Morgan v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 877 (notice prior to introduction of bill ......
-
Housewright v. State
...Arnold v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 345 (venue proven and jury properly impaneled and sworn are presumed); Ex parte Rocha, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 169 (regularity of judgment presumed on habeas corpus); Morgan v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 877 (notice prior to introduction of bill ......