Mendez, Jeffery

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS

NO. WR-94,115-01

EX PARTE JEFFERY MENDEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. D-1-DC-15-301608-A IN THE 403RD DISTRICT COURT
TRAVIS COUNTY

SLAUGHTER, J., filed a concurring opinion.

CONCURRING OPINION

I join in the Court’s decision to grant Applicant post-conviction habeas relief in the

form of an out-of-time petition for discretionary review. I write separately to once again

emphasize 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 wholly failed to fulfill this obligation, thereby

depriving Applicant of his ability to pursue discretionary review in this Court. This
Mendez - 2

situation happens far too frequently and is a troubling sign that some appellate attorneys

are failing to properly communicate with their clients (particularly those who are

incarcerated) regarding their right to seek discretionary review.

I. Background

On November 2, 2017, Applicant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to

life imprisonment. Applicant’s appointed appellate counsel timely filed an Anders 1 brief

and a motion to withdraw. On February 21, 2019, the court of appeals issued its opinion in

which it agreed with counsel that there were no arguable grounds for appeal, thereby

resulting in affirmance of the trial court’s judgment. Mendez v. State, No. 01-18-00067-

CR, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1310, 2019 WL 757854 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb.

21, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Although the deadline to file

a petition for discretionary review occurred 30 days later, no petition was timely filed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a) (providing that petition for discretionary review must generally be

filed within 30 days after issuance of the court of appeals’ opinion).

In his instant post-conviction habeas application, Applicant alleges that appellate

counsel never informed him of the court of appeals’ decision or of his right to seek

discretionary review in this Court. Instead, Applicant claims that, long after the deadline

for filing a PDR had passed, he discovered the outcome of his direct appeal through a third

party. Applicant now seeks relief in the form of an out-of-time PDR.

1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Mendez - 3

On January 19, 2023, the habeas court ordered appellate counsel to file an affidavit

responding to the allegations. But, appellate counsel ignored the court’s order and never

filed an affidavit. 2 The habeas court ultimately found in Applicant’s favor and

recommended that this Court grant him the requested relief.

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

actually pursuing discretionary review, appellate counsel still has the duty to advise the

defendant 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
2
According to the State Bar website, appellate counsel has been suspended for an administrative reason
and is ineligible to practice law. A suspended license does not absolve him from complying with the habeas
court’s order. Moreover, when an attorney is ordered to provide an affidavit in response to an Applicant’s
habeas allegations and wholly fails to do so, that attorney violates his obligations under the Texas Rules of
Professional Conduct as well as his oath and the Texas Lawyer’s Creed. See Ex parte Touchet, 615 S.W.3d
160, 162 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (Slaughter, J., concurring) (“An attorney’s complete failure to respond to
claims raised against him not only hinders judicial economy, but in some instances may result in the Court’s
inability to fully and fairly decide a claim. Such a serious infraction warrants action by the habeas court. If
the habeas court fails to take appropriate action, then this Court should do so or at least require habeas
counsel to respond.”). Even with a suspended license, counsel must fulfill his obligations or potentially risk
losing his license altogether.
Mendez - 4

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). As Rule 48.4 clearly states, appellate counsel must:

(1) send a copy of the court of appeals’ opinion and notify the defendant 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. Unfortunately, appellate counsel here

failed to fulfill any of these duties and, as a result, Applicant was deprived of his

opportunity to pursue an entire proceeding. See Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 675

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (noting that counsel’s failure to inform defendant of his right to

pursue a petition for discretionary review “deprive[d] him of an entire proceeding”). Thus,

I agree with the Court that the appropriate remedy under these circumstances is to put

Applicant back in the position he would have been in but for appellate counsel’s error by

granting Applicant an out-of-time PDR.

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

More generally, I also note 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).
Mendez - 5

Ultimately, appellate counsel’s failure to properly communicate with his client

about the status of his direct appeal is unfair to that client and falls short of the standard for

professionalism set forth in the disciplinary rules. Not only this, but it also 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 stay abreast of

case developments and 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: September 13, 2023

Publish