Opinion ID: 6109859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of Review and Error Preservation

Text: We may review a court of appeals' issuance of a writ of mandamus to determine if it constituted a clear abuse of discretion. Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 686 S.W.2d 105 , 107 (Tex. 1985) ; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 22.002(a). In so doing, however, our focus remains on the trial court's order. Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals , 700 S.W.2d 916 , 918 (Tex. 1985). The State argues that the court of appeals abused its discretion for two principal reasons. First, the State complains that the court of appeals granted mandamus relief on a ground that was never presented to the trial court. Specifically, Brown argued (in both the trial court and the court of appeals) that he was entitled to counsel on constitutional due process grounds, while the court of appeals relied on the statutory right to counsel in a biennial review in concluding the trial court abused its discretion. Second, the State argues the court of appeals erroneously construed the Act to entitle Brown to representation by counsel in a Subchapter E modification proceeding solely because he already had appointed counsel in his then-pending biennial review under Subchapter F. We need not decide whether the statutory ground relied on by the court of appeals  was properly presented to the trial court. Assuming that it was, for the reasons discussed below we hold that the court of appeals nevertheless abused its discretion in concluding Brown was statutorily entitled to appointed counsel. See In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P. , 164 S.W.3d 379 , 382 (Tex. 2005) (noting that a court abuses its discretion ... if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law).