Per Curiam.

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and his punishment was assessed at fifty years imprisonment after Applicant was found to be a habitual offender. This conviction was affirmed, Reyes v. State, No. 14-00-1386-CR (Tex.App. - Houston [14th], delivered January 17, 2002, no pet.).

Applicant contends that he was denied an opportunity to file a petition for discretionary review because his appellate attorney notified him that she would file a petition for discretionary review for him, then decided not to file the petition without advising Applicant that he could file one pro se. An affidavit filed by appellate counsel corroborates these allegations, and the trial court has found them to be true, but makes no recommendation as to disposition of this application.

Therefore, Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Wilson, 965 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997). The proper remedy in a case such as this is to return Applicant to the point at which he can file a petition for discretionary review. He may then follow the proper procedures in order that a meaningful petition for discretionary review may be filed. For purposes of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all time limits shall be calculated as if the Court of Appeals' decision had been rendered on the day the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that should Applicant desire to seek discretionary review, he must take affirmative steps to see that his petition is filed in the Court of Appeals within thirty days after the mandate of this Court has issued.

DELIVERED: June 4, 2003

DO NOT PUBLISH