In Re Ramon M. Diana v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00236-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00236-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE RAMON M. DIANA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Ramon M. Diana assails various

orders issued in a family law case based on, inter alia, lack of jurisdiction and improper

service. 2 We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

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).

2 This petition for writ of mandamus arises from trial court cause number 2022-DCL-02849 in the

444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. We previously granted mandamus relief in favor of Diana in a separate original proceeding. See In re Diana, No. 13-24-00287-CV, 2024 WL 3221597, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 28, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Diana filed an appeal from other orders issued in this same trial court proceeding which is docketed in our appellate cause number 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).

Alternatively, 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 response filed by real party in interest Elvia Karina Diana-Cordova, relator’s reply,

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

Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 23rd day of June, 2025.

13-24-00111-CV. By separate memorandum opinion issued this same day, we have affirmed the orders subject to appeal in that case. See In re K.D., P.D., V.D., and E.D., Children, No. 13-24-00111-CV, 2025 WL _____, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 23, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).