In Re Mitchell William Blakeley v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: January 26, 2026
• Docket: 09-26-00032-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00032-CV __________________

IN RE MITCHELL WILLIAM BLAKELEY

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 418th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25-05-07297 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mitchell William Blakeley filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a

motion for temporary relief. Relator Mitchell William Blakeley seeks to compel the

trial court in the underlying suit for divorce and custody (1) to vacate an Order on

Motion for Interim Attorney’s Fees and Expenses and Trial Retainer dated January

14, 2026, (2) to vacate the trial court’s Order on Petitioner’s Motion for Leave dated

January 14, 2026, and (3) to grant leave to Relator to allow him to designate George

S. Glass, M.D. as an expert. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.502(a)(4); Tex. R. Civ. P.

193.6.

1 We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by

the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See 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). “An

abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable,

made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence.” In re

Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). A

trial court also abuses its discretion if it fails to correctly analyze or apply the law,

because a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying

the law to the facts. See Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

Having reviewed the petition for a writ of mandamus and the record submitted

with the petition, we conclude that the Relator has not shown that he is entitled to

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

motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a), 52.10.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 23, 2026 Opinion Delivered January 26, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.