In re Terry Trentacosta v. Appeal from 399th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00057-CR IN RE Terry TRENTACOSTA Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 3, 2013 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On January 24, 2013, Relator Terry Trentacosta filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel and motion for presentation and forensic testing of DNA evidence. However, in a criminal case, in order to be entitled to mandamus relief relator must establish: (1) he has no other adequate legal remedy; and (2) under the relevant facts and law, the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial. In re Reed, 137 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) (citing State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). On March 25, 2013, the trial court entered an amended order denying the motion for DNA testing, which is an appealable order. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.05 (West 2006); see also TEX. R. APP. PROC. 26.2(a)(1) (providing the notice of appeal must be filed 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2006-CR-6469, styled State of Texas v. Terry Trentacosta, in the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ray J. Olivarri presiding. 04-13-00057-CR within 30 days after the day the trial court enters an appealable order). Therefore, Trentacosta has an adequate remedy by filing an appeal from the trial court s March 25, 2013 amended order. As to Trentacosta s complaint that the trial court denied his motion to appoint counsel, we also deny the requested relief. A trial court is not required to appoint counsel unless it finds there are reasonable grounds for the motion to be filed, which is a finding that we review for an abuse of discretion. See In re Ludwig, 162 S.W.3d 454, 455 (Tex. App. Waco 2005, orig. proceeding). Therefore, the appointment of counsel is not a purely ministerial act that is subject to mandamus relief. See In re Reed, 137 S.W.3d at 678. Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that Trentacosta has not established he is entitled to mandamus relief. Id. Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
