Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00684-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE JOHNNY PARTAIN ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1 Relator Johnny Partain filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court failed its “ministerial duty under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 308 to protect and carry into execution the July 29, 2025 Final Judgment.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 308. Relator has also filed a “First Amended Emergency Motion to Preserve Judgment and Res” and an “Objection to Continuing Unconstitutional Exercise of Government Power and Demand for Immediate Preservation of the Judgment and Res.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(a). Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus joins a related appeal in our appellate 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). cause number 13-26-00577-CV, Johnny Partain v. The State of Texas, which we have disposed of by separate memorandum opinion issued this same date. See Partain v. State, No. 13-26-00577-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 30, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). “Mandamus is an ‘extraordinary remedy’ that is ‘available only in limited circumstances . . . .’” In re Rogers, 728 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting City of Houston v. Hou. Mun. Emps. Pension Sys., 549 S.W.3d 566, 580 (Tex. 2018)). “A writ of mandamus is available to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal.” In re Lapuerta, 732 S.W.3d 548, 555 (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding). “A court abuses its discretion if no evidence supports the finding on which its ruling rests and if the court could reasonably have reached only a contrary conclusion.” In re AutoZoners, LLC, 694 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). We conduct a “benefits-and-detriments analysis” to determine if the relator possesses an adequate remedy at law. In re Auburn Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus, the “First Amended Emergency Motion to Preserve Judgment and Res,” and all relief sought in the “Objection to Continuing Unconstitutional Exercise of Government Power and Demand for Immediate Preservation of the Judgment and Res.” CLARISSA SILVA Justice Delivered and filed on the 30th day of October, 2026. 2