Hutchinson, Henry Lee

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-85,945-02

EX PARTE HENRY LEE HUTCHINSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 2012-1755-C2C IN THE 54TH DISTRICT COURT
MCLENNAN COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION

Applicant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to seventy-five years’

imprisonment. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction that stated “N/A” regarding a deadly

weapon finding. The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed Applicant’s conviction. Hutchinson v. State,

No. 10-13-00120-CR (Tex. App.—Waco Apr. 17, 2014) (not designated for publication). Shortly

after Applicant was released on parole in 2021, the trial court sua sponte entered a judgment nunc

pro tunc that amended the judgment of conviction to reflect a deadly weapon finding. The Eighth

Court of Appeals reversed the nunc judgment and remanded the case for the limited purpose of

conducting a hearing on the nunc judgment. Hutchinson v. State, No. 08-22-00002-CR (Tex.

App.—Texarkana Oct. 14, 2022) (not designated for publication). The trial court thereafter entered
2

a second judgment nunc pro tunc that again amended the judgment of conviction to reflect a deadly

weapon finding. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed the issuance of the second nunc judgment.

Hutchinson v. State, No. 06-23-00086-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 13, 2023) (not designated

for publication).1 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 that appellate counsel failed to timely inform him that the second nunc

judgment had been affirmed and advise him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary

review. The trial court determined that appellate counsel was not ineffective and recommends

denying relief. We disagree. Based on our own independent review of the record, we find that

appellate counsel’s performance was deficient. Appellate counsel’s letter to Applicant—regardless

of whether it was sent on October 31, 2023, or if it was sent on November 14, 2023—did not advise

Applicant of his right to pursue discretionary review on his own. We further find that Applicant

would have timely filed a petition for discretionary review but for counsel’s deficient performance.

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 Sixth Court of Appeals in cause number 06-23-00086-

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.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

1
Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, the case was transferred to the Eight
Court of Appeals and then to the Sixth Court of Appeals by the Texas Supreme Court.
3

Delivered: July 2, 2025
Do not publish