In Re Ricardo Hernandez and Joel Hernandez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 5, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00175-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00175-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE RICARDO HERNANDEZ AND JOEL HERNANDEZ

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relators Ricardo Hernandez and Joel Hernandez

contend that the trial court erred by: (1) “reopening evidence and scheduling additional

bench trial proceedings in the absence of plenary power”; and (2) “failing and/or refusing

to set an appellate bond.”

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Walker, 683

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). S.W.3d 400, 402 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d

836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by 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, if 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) (per curiam));

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

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

the response filed by real party in interest Rene Angel Hernandez, and the applicable law,

is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. First, in terms of

plenary jurisdiction, relators withdrew their motion for new trial, as was their right, see

Rogers v. Clinton, 794 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding), after their motion for

new trial had already been overruled as a matter of law, thus the trial court’s plenary

jurisdiction encompassed its rulings regarding the reopening of evidence. See TEX. R.

CIV. P. 329b(c), (e).

Second, while we appreciate relators’ efforts to obtain a ruling on their motion to

set the amount required to supersede the judgment, the trial court’s rulings reopening

evidence and discovery may affect the trial court’s ruling on the merits, the amount

required to supersede the judgment, or both. We are confident that the trial court will act

2 promptly to resolve this matter when the record before it is complete. We note that to the

extent that we are denying relief regarding relators’ contentions regarding supersedeas,

the denial is without prejudice with regard to the timing of that ruling or its merits. See,

e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(a).

We lift the stay previously imposed in this case and we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 5th day of June, 2024.