In re Mario Saucedo, Sr., Relator--Appeal from 198th Judicial District Court of Menard County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00599-CR IN RE Mario SAUCEDO, Sr. Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 17, 2012 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED In 2002, relator was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child. On October 8, 2003, this court affirmed the appeal in Cause No. 04-02-00864-CR and the mandate issued on May 3, 2004. Therefore, Saucedo s felony convictions became final. On September 18, 2012, relator Mario Saucedo, Sr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the Honorable Rex Emerson has failed to appoint counsel to aid relator in filing a motion for DNA testing pursuant to Article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 64.01(c) (West 2011). Because relator has failed to comply with the requirements of chapter 64, we deny the requested relief. 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 02-1892, styled State of Texas v. Mario Saucedo, Sr., pending in the 198th Judicial District Court, Menard County, Texas, the Honorable M. Rex Emerson presiding. 04-12-00599-CR Article 64.01(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in 2003. As amended, the trial court shall provide appointed counsel only if: (1) the convicted individual informs the court of his desire to submit a motion under this chapter; (2) the court finds reasonable grounds for the motion to be filed, and (3) the court makes a determination that the convicted individual is indigent. Id. Although neither party contests relator s indigency, the motion does not address the second prong of the requirements set forth in Chapter 64. See In re Ludwig, 162 S.W.3d 454, 454 55 (Tex. App. Waco 2005, orig. proceeding) ( [E]ven if the convicting court determines that a convicted person is indigent, the court would not be required to appoint counsel if it found there were no reasonable grounds for the motion to be filed. ) In the present case, the offenses for which relator was convicted occurred over a period of eight years preceding the investigation and identity was never an issue at trial. Thus, relator has failed to prove reasonable grounds for the motion to be filed. Id. Accordingly, relator s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 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.
