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 possession of more than four grams of cocaine and his punishment, enhanced by a prior conviction, was assessed at thirty-seven years imprisonment. This conviction was affirmed, Buckley v. State, No. 05-99-286-CR (Tex.App. - Dallas, delivered August 7, 2000, no pet.).

Applicant contends, inter alia, that he was denied an opportunity to file a petition for discretionary review because his appellate attorney did not notify him that he could file such a petition. Counsel submits correspondence showing he provided timely notice of the affirmance to Applicant, but failed to mention that Applicant could file a pro se petition for discretionary review. The trial court has recommended that Applicant be granted an opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review.

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.

All other allegations are dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

DELIVERED: June 11, 2003

DO NOT PUBLISH