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Do Not Publish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