Ex Parte Michael Marmentini--Appeal from 166th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00288-CV EX PARTE Michael MARMENTINI Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 21, 2010 RELIEF DENIED This is an original habeas corpus proceeding.2 Michael Marmentini was found in contempt for failing to pay court-ordered child support. The trial court committed Marmentini to the county jail, but suspended the commitment and placed him on community supervision. On January 6, 2010, the court revoked Marmentini s community supervision and ordered he be committed to the county jail for 180 days and until he pays . . . $10,720.00 in child support arrearages [and] . . . $917.00 in court costs. 1 ¦ This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 95EM 504646, styled In the Interest of D.M.M., pending in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Gloria Saldaña presiding. 2 ¦ Although Marmentini styles his pleading a writ of mandamus, he alleges he is illegally restrained and seeks release from custody. Accordingly, we treat the pleading as an application for a writ of habeas corpus. W e note this court lacks authority to issue writs of mandamus against the sheriff unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. T EX . G O V . C O D E A N N . § 22.221(a) (Vernon 2004). 04-10-00288-CV In his unsworn application, Marmentini alleges he has been confined in the Bexar County jail continuously since January 6, 2010. He further alleges he is classified as a trustee inmate performing manual labor duties and is being denied 3 for 1 days of credit toward his sentence that prisoners with criminal convictions receive. Marmentini alleges this denies him equal protection of the law and that if the credits were applied to him he would be entitled to immediate release from custody. We conclude Marmentini has not shown himself entitled to relief. Marmentini has not provided the appendix required by Rule 52.3(k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Marmentini has not demonstrated that the Bexar County Sheriff is not applying articles 42.032 and 43.10 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to him in the same manner as other prisoners. Finally, Marmentini has neither alleged nor shown that he has satisfied the civil coercive contempt judgment. See Ex parte Acly, 711 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. 1986) (noting that good time credit does not apply to coercive civil contempt orders). Therefore, even if Marmentini shows he has served the criminal contempt portion of the commitment order, he would not be not entitled to discharge from custody. Accordingly, relief is denied. PER CURIAM -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.
