Court Opinion

ID: 9363434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 00:10:15.505886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.877780
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00559-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                IN RE ALEJANDRA SUAREZ

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

  Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina
               Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

        On November 22, 2022, relator Alejandra Suarez filed a petition for writ of

mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion “[i]n evaluating evidence

presented during a hearing on temporary orders” and by modifying conservatorship,

possession, and access to A.A.T., a minor child.

        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).
       Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. 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

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). Appellate courts are not authorized to resolve

factual disputes in a mandamus proceeding. See In re Woodfill, 470 S.W.3d 473, 478

(Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Angelini, 186 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex.

2006) (orig. proceeding); In re Perez, 508 S.W.3d 500, 503 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016,

orig. proceeding [mand. denied]). Further, appellate courts do not question the trial court’s

credibility determinations in an original proceeding. In re D.L., 641 S.W.3d 873, 890 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Hightower, 580 S.W.3d 248, 255 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding [mand. denied); In re B.B., 632 S.W.3d

136, 141 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding).

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

the response filed by real party in interest Francisco Trevino, the record, and the

applicable law, is of the opinion that Suarez has not met her burden to obtain mandamus

relief. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.4, 52.7, 52.8.

                                             2
                                 JAIME TIJERINA
                                 Justice

Delivered and filed on the
11th day of January, 2023.

                             3