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-