Court Opinion

ID: 4120807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-01-30 10:13:43.648661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:04.278422
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              ___________________

                               NO. 09-17-00011-CR
                              ___________________

                     IN RE TERRY HELMCAMP
__________________________________________________________________

                           Original Proceeding
           435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 12-01-00757
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relator Terry Helmcamp filed a pro se petition for writ of prohibition, in

which he argues that the waiver, consent, judicial confession, and plea agreement he

signed in accordance with his guilty plea are illegal and unconstitutional.

Specifically, Helmcamp asserts that (1) he waived his constitutional right to trial

under duress, (2) the State failed to allow him access to exculpatory evidence in

violation of the Michael Morton Act, and (3) the State coerced him to waive his right

to service of a copy of the indictment. Helmcamp asks this Court to “prohibit” said

allegedly unlawful and unconstitutional actions.

                                         1
      A writ of prohibition directs a lower court to refrain from doing some act. In

re Lambert, 993 S.W.2d 123, 126 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, orig. proceeding).

A writ of prohibition will only issue to prevent the threatened commission of a future

act; that is, it will not issue to undo an act that has already been performed. State ex

rel. Rodriguez v. Onion, 741 S.W.2d 433, 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The relief

Helmcamp seeks pertains to actions that have already occurred, and such relief is

not consistent with a request for a writ of prohibition. See id. Accordingly, we deny

Helmcamp’s petition for a writ of prohibition.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                            PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 24, 2017
Opinion Delivered January 25, 2017
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                           2