in Re: Jason A. Burkett

NUMBER 13-20-00417-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE JASON A. BURKETT
On appeal from the 430th District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Relator Jason Burkett filed a petition for writ of mandamus contending that the trial
court failed in its ministerial duty to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine child
support arrearages in violation of this Court’s mandate in Burkett v. Burkett, No. 13-18-
00385-CV, 2019 WL 3331635, at *13 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 25, 2019,
pet. denied). Real party in interest Zina Michelle Burkett has filed a response to the
petition, and Jason has filed a reply to her response.
To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that the trial court
committed a clear abuse of discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal.
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator
bears the burden of proving both requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d
300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
A mandate formally commands a lower court to obey a higher court’s judgment. In
re Assurances Generales Banque Nationale, 334 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2010, orig. proceeding). On remand, the trial court’s jurisdiction is limited to the issues
specified in the mandate and the scope of the mandate is determined by referring to both
the appellate opinion and the mandate itself. See Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Aircraft Network,
345 S.W.3d 139, 144 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). When the appellate court
remands a case with instructions, the trial court is given a reasonable amount of discretion
to comply with the mandate. Russell v. Russell, 478 S.W.3d 36, 42 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.). In exercising its discretion, the trial court is authorized to take
all actions that are necessary to give full effect to the appellate court’s judgment and
mandate. Min v. H & S Crane Sales, Inc., 472 S.W.3d 773, 778–79 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response, the reply and the applicable law, concludes that relator has not met his
burden to obtain relief. See id.; Russell, 478 S.W.3d at 42. Accordingly, we DENY the
2
petition for writ of mandamus.
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
28th day of October, 2020.
3