in Re Floyd Edward Hamm ( 2011 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00034-CV
IN RE FLOYD EDWARD HAMM RELATOR
------------
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
------------
The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of
the opinion that relief should be denied. By an order signed on November 22,
2010, the trial court denied relator’s “REQUEST TO RESCIND JUDGEMENT
AND ORDER TO WITHDRAW FUNDS.” Relator had an adequate remedy at
law—a direct appeal to this court—to challenge the trial court’s order; thus, he
may not attack it by seeking mandamus. See Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315,
321 (Tex. 2009); In re Pannell, 283 S.W.3d 31, 35 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009,
orig. proceeding) (“Mandamus is not available if another remedy, though it would
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
have been adequate, was not timely exercised.”); In re Carson, 12 S.W.3d 886,
888 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, orig. proceeding) (holding that a relator was
not entitled to mandamus relief because he “did not take advantage of [a] clearly
adequate remedy when it existed”). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus is denied.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.
DELIVERED: January 27, 2011
2