in Re Thelma Doris Ferry ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                  NUMBER 13-17-00615-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    IN RE THELMA DORIS FERRY
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1
    By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, Thelma Doris Ferry seeks to compel the
    respondent to “vacate and render null and void the Order for Access to Property Division
    as Per Final Decree” and to prevent the respondent from presiding over any further
    matters related to trial court cause number 2013-FAM-4013-G.2
    1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in
    any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
    so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
    2 This cause arises from the 319th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, and the
    respondent in this original proceeding is the Honorable Everardo Garcia, who is presiding over this matter
    pursuant to an order of assignment rendered on July 26, 2017 by the presiding judge of the Fifth
    Administrative Judicial Region. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2. Relator has previously filed an appeal
    Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 
    492 S.W.3d 300
    ,
    302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a
    clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus
    Santa Rosa Health Sys., 
    492 S.W.3d 276
    , 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). An abuse
    of discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made
    without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins.
    Co. of Am., 
    494 S.W.3d 708
    , 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia,
    
    363 S.W.3d 573
    , 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy
    by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins.
    Co., 
    450 S.W.3d 524
    , 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
    
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
    The relator bears the burden of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion
    and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re H.E.B. Grocery 
    Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302
    ; Walker v. Packer, 
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see also
    Barnes v. State, 
    832 S.W.2d 424
    , 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.
    proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled
    to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must
    include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the
    appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the
    and two original proceedings in this Court. See In re Ferry, No. 13-17-00402-CV, 
    2017 WL 4250205
    , at *1
    (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 26, 2017, Orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying relator’s petition for writ
    of mandamus seeking to disqualify the judge of the trial court); In re Ferry, No. 13-17-00326-CV, 
    2017 WL 4250206
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 26, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying relator’s
    petition for writ of mandamus seeking to set aside a “First Amended Retirement Benefits Court Order” and
    to compel the judge of the trial court to withdraw from presiding over the case); Ferry v. Ferry, No. 13-16-
    00148-CV, 
    2016 WL 3225670
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 9, 2016, no pet.) (per curiam mem.
    op.)(dismissing the appeal of an order denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge).
    2
    contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.”
    See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that the relator must furnish
    an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See 
    id. R. 52.3(k)
    (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the
    required contents for the record).
    The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
    and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not shown herself entitled to
    the relief sought. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.
    APP. P. 52.8(a).
    NORA L. LONGORIA
    Justice
    Delivered and filed the
    2nd day of November, 2017.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-17-00615-CV

Filed Date: 11/2/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2017