Facts
- Angelo Louis DiCostanzo filed a verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging excessive bail and illegal incarceration at Yellowstone County Detention Facility. [lines="15-16"]
- DiCostanzo was sentenced in April 2023 for one felony and one misdemeanor, with a deferred sentence for felony criminal endangerment and a twelve-month commitment to the detention facility for a DUI. [lines="20-26"]
- He claims to be a pre-trial detainee facing new charges of sexual assault and potential revocation of his previous sentence. [lines="28-30"]
- DiCostanzo requested immediate release, citing alleged legal violations including due process, excessive bail, and double jeopardy concerns. [lines="33-36"]
- The court found no demonstration of illegal incarceration, stating the cause of his confinement was his pending criminal cases and revocation. [lines="49-54"]
Issues
- Whether DiCostanzo's petition sufficiently demonstrates illegal detention to warrant a writ of habeas corpus. [lines="49-50"]
- Whether the imposition of bail and the conditions of his incarceration were lawful under relevant statutes. [lines="58-60"]
Holdings
- DiCostanzo's claims did not establish his illegal incarceration; thus, his petition was denied. [lines="74-78"]
- The court found that DiCostanzo's constitutional claims were not appropriate for resolution through a writ of habeas corpus, but rather through an appeal after a final decision from the District Court. [lines="66-68"]
OPINION
Case Information
*1 NUMBER 13-24-00574-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE REIDIE JACKSON
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Longoria, Tijerina, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria 1
By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Reidie Jackson contends that the trial court erred by “not ruling on, inter alia , the motion(s) to execute the settlement agreement and/or motion to enforce the settlement agreement.”
“Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances.” State ex rel. Wice v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. , 581 S.W.3d 189, 193 *2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (orig. proceeding). In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. See In re Meza , 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris , 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re McCann , 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See In re Schreck , 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Pena , 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding). This burden includes providing a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. In re Schreck , 642 S.W.3d at 927; In re Pena , 619 S.W.3d at 839; see also T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k) (delineating the required contents for the appendix in an original proceeding), 52.7(a) (providing that the relator “must file” a record including specific matters).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish.
T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed on the
25th day of November, 2024.
2
[1] See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).