In Re Frances Spanos Shelton v. the State of Texas

Opinions

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed as Moot and Memorandum and Concurring Opinions filed April 3, 2026.

In The

Fifteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 15-25-00152-CV

IN RE FRANCES SPANOS SHELTON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 414th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2024-3035-5

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Frances “Fran” Spanos Shelton filed a petition for writ of mandamus that raises the same issues as those in her interlocutory appeal from an order appointing a receiver, which we have rejected today in a memorandum opinion.1 Fran says she filed the petition because of “counsel’s fear that [this] Court could resolve the interlocutory appeal without granting mandamus relief to remedy the void nature

1 See Shelton v. Leuschner, No. 15-25-00072-CV (Tex. App.—15th Dist. Apr. 3, 2026). of the county court at law’s orders.” In the interlocutory appeal, we have rejected that argument because “the district court’s order appointing a receiver is not predicated on any part of a prior county court at law order.” When a party files both an interlocutory appeal and a petition for mandamus seeking the same relief on the same grounds, if an appellate grants or denies one it should dismiss the other as moot. See, e.g., Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Yarbrough, 405 S.W.3d 70, 82 (Tex. 2013) (dismissing petition for mandamus as moot after granting relief in related interlocutory appeal); In re D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 784 (Tex. 2006) (dismissing interlocutory appeal as moot after granting relief in related mandamus proceeding). Having denied relief on the issues Fran presented in the interlocutory appeal, we dismiss her duplicative mandamus petition as moot.2

/s/ Scott A. Brister Scott A. Brister Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris. (Farris, J., concurring).

2 Soon after Fran filed her mandamus petition, Real Parties filed a motion to stay it. We dismiss the motion as moot.