The opinion
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