In Re Angel Jose Tamez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 26, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00466-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00466-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ANGEL JOSE TAMEZ

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

Relator Angel Jose Tamez filed a petition for writ of mandamus and request for

stay in the above-referenced cause number. Relator contends that the trial court abused

its discretion on August 15, 2024 by signing an order “which was not properly before the

Court.” Relator seeks to stay the August 15, 2024 order pending the resolution of this

original proceeding.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”); id. R. 47.4 (explaining the differences between opinions and memorandum opinions). Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Alternatively, when a trial court issues an order

“beyond its jurisdiction,” mandamus relief is appropriate because its order is void ab initio.

In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

(quoting In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam)).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that the relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we

deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the request for stay.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 26th day of September, 2024.