in Re Paul C. Murphy IV, Kelly A. Young, Elizabeth Ann Crofford Smith, Avery Claire Crofford, and William T. Crofford

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00209-CV
__________________
IN RE PAUL C. MURPHY IV, KELLY A. YOUNG,
ELIZABETH ANN CROFFORD SMITH, AVERY CLAIRE CROFFORD,
AND WILLIAM T. CROFFORD
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
County Court at Law No. 2 of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 19-37828-P
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Paul C. Murphy IV, Kelly A. Young, Elizabeth Ann Crofford Smith, Avery
Claire Crofford, and William T. Crofford, Relators, filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus to compel the Honorable Judge Lamar McCorkle, Senior Judge sitting
by assignment to the County Court at Law Number 2 of Montgomery County, Texas,
to vacate all orders he signed in Trial Cause Number 19-37828-P and request another
judge be assigned to the case. See generally Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b)(1).
1
Relators argue the order of assignment is void because the Honorable Olen
Underwood, the presiding judge of the Second Administrative District, did not have
the power to assign Judge McCorkle to a court in the Second Administrative District
and that Judge Underwood violated statutory requirements and administrative rules
when he assigned Judge McCorkle to the case on November 6, 2020. 1 Relators
contend that on January 21, 2022, Judge McCorkle abused his discretion by
overruling Relators’ December 7, 2021 Verified Objection to Assigned Judge and
Request for Reassignment and by failing to rule on the Supplemental Verified
Objection they filed on January 19, 2022. Relators insist they did not object to Judge
McCorkle under section 74.053 of the Texas Government Code and consequently
Judge McCorkle erred by ruling that their objection was untimely. See generally
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.053 (c) (“An objection under this section must be filed
not later than the seventh day after the date the party receives actual notice of the
assignment or before the date the first hearing or trial, including pretrial hearings,
commences, whichever date occurs earlier.”).
“To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an
underlying order is void or a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate
remedy exists.” In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016).
After reviewing the petition and record, we conclude Relators are not entitled to
1This office is currently held by the Honorable Robert Hill Trapp.
2
mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See
Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on July 27, 2022
Opinion Delivered July 28, 2022
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3