In Re J.P.S. v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In Re J.P.S. v. the State of Texas

DecidedJune 2, 2025

Docket13-25-00291-CV

StatusPublished

This text of In Re J.P.S. v. the State of Texas (In Re J.P.S. v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re J.P.S. v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00291-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE J.P.S.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator J.P.S., a juvenile, asserts that the trial

court abused its discretion by not following our mandate and by allowing the State to

proceed on a petition for determinate sentence that was filed after we reversed and

remanded the case in a previous appeal. See In re J.P.S., No. 13-24-00120-CV, 2024

WL 3199186, at **1–5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 27, 2024, no pet.)

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). (mem. op.).

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on

appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding). “The

relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.,

492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827

S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). However, a juvenile proceeding is quasi-

criminal in nature, and the application of civil or criminal analyses in such cases vary

depending on the circumstances presented. See In re L.D.C., 400 S.W.3d 572, 574 (Tex.

2013); In re D.I.B., 988 S.W.2d 753, 756 (Tex. 1999); see also In re State ex rel. Saenz,

No. 13-23-00530-CR, 2024 WL 49506, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan.

3, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

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

the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to

obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

YSMAEL FONSECA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 2nd day of June, 2025.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI