In Re Eve Escobedo v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00545-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00545-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE EVE ESCOBEDO

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Eve Escobedo asserts that the trial

court’s default judgment is void because she failed to receive valid notice of the date for

trial.

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,

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

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Ordinarily, 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). However, when “a trial court issues an order

‘beyond its jurisdiction,’ mandamus relief is appropriate because such an 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)). In such circumstances, the relator need not show it lacks an adequate

appellate remedy. See In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 256, 261 (Tex. 2014) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d at 605.

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

the limited record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not

met her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JON WEST Justice

Delivered and filed on the 31st day of October, 2025.