NUMBER 13-17-00615-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE THELMA DORIS FERRY
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1
By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, Thelma Doris Ferry seeks to compel the
respondent to “vacate and render null and void the Order for Access to Property Division
as Per Final Decree” and to prevent the respondent from presiding over any further
matters related to trial court cause number 2013-FAM-4013-G.2
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in
any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2 This cause arises from the 319th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, and the
respondent in this original proceeding is the Honorable Everardo Garcia, who is presiding over this matter
pursuant to an order of assignment rendered on July 26, 2017 by the presiding judge of the Fifth
Administrative Judicial Region. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2. Relator has previously filed an appeal
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300,
302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a
clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus
Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). An abuse
of discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is 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); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia,
363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy
by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins.
Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
The relator bears the burden of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion
and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at
302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see also
Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.
proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled
to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must
include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the
appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the
and two original proceedings in this Court. See In re Ferry, No. 13-17-00402-CV, 2017 WL 4250205, at *1
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 26, 2017, Orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying relator’s petition for writ
of mandamus seeking to disqualify the judge of the trial court); In re Ferry, No. 13-17-00326-CV, 2017 WL
4250206, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 26, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus seeking to set aside a “First Amended Retirement Benefits Court Order” and
to compel the judge of the trial court to withdraw from presiding over the case); Ferry v. Ferry, No. 13-16-
00148-CV, 2016 WL 3225670, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 9, 2016, no pet.) (per curiam mem.
op.)(dismissing the appeal of an order denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge).
2
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.”
See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that the relator must furnish
an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R.
52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the
required contents for the record).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not shown herself entitled to
the relief sought. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.8(a).
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
2nd day of November, 2017.
3