In Re Troy Tucker v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00297-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00297-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE TROY TUCKER

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Troy Tucker asserts that the trial court

abused its discretion by granting a motion for severance. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 41.

Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that is discretionary in nature. See In re Allstate

Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d

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

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 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 on 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). If the trial court abuses its discretion by granting

severance, an appellate remedy may be inadequate, thus such an order can be reviewed

by mandamus. See In re State, 355 S.W.3d 611, 614–15 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding);

In re GTG Sols., Inc., 642 S.W.3d 41, 45 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding); In

re Stutsman, 612 S.W.3d 695, 698 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020, orig. proceeding).

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

the response filed by real party in interest Mike Best, relator’s reply, and the applicable

law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. See State v.

Morello, 547 S.W.3d 881, 889 (Tex. 2018); Cherokee Water Co. v. Forderhause, 641

S.W.2d 522, 525–26 (Tex. 1982); Valdez v. Cisneros, 678 S.W.3d 305, 316 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2023, no pet.); Dorsey v. Raval, 480 S.W.3d 10, 15 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi–Edinburg 2015, no pet.); Arredondo v. City of Dall., 79 S.W.3d 657, 665 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2002, pet. denied). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

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