A jury found Appellant guilty of forgery and the trial court assessed punishment at 20 months. On appeal, Appellant raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, citing four specific instances of alleged ineffectiveness. These were set out by the Court of Appeals in the opinion. Wilson v. State, No. 14-04-00005-CR (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist., August 9, 2005). The court of appeals affirmed the conviction finding that there was no prejudice from the mention of parole during the testimony of the store manager.

Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review contending the Court of Appeals failed to address three of the four alleged instances of ineffectiveness that were included in his brief. Although the Court of Appeals did set out these claims, the Court's opinion does not address the claims that counsel failed to object to Woods' testimony that he believed Appellant was less than truthful with him on the telephone; that counsel failed to object to Budgewater's hearsay testimony about what she was told regarding the forger's identity; and that counsel failed to object to extraneous offense testimony regarding a string of related forgeries in which Appellant was a suspect.

The Court of Appeals must address every issue raised and advise the parties of the basic reasons for the court's decision. Tex. R. App. Proc. 47.1. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to address all of Appellant's alleged errors. Accordingly, we grant Appellant's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the remainder of Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Date delivered:

Do Not Publish