Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00743-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE SHELBY LYNNETTE WELCH ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1 By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Shelby Lynnette Welch asserts that: (1) the trial court may not “repeatedly compel proof of inability to pay and set Rule 145 hearings when no evidence suggesting ability to pay has come before the court and no need to appoint an officer or professional has been identified”; (2) mandamus “relief is necessary to protect [r]elator’s filed Rule 145 statement and prevent repeated 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). proceedings on the same showing”; and (3) “the reporter’s stated refusal to begin preparation without payment or a further indigency determination unlawfully impedes timely preparation of the record for the pending appeal.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145. Relator has also filed an emergency motion for temporary relief requesting this Court to: (1) stay the November 17, 2026 Rule 145 hearing; (2) stop further demands that she repeatedly prove inability to afford court costs and stop additional court-initiated hearings on that issue while this original proceeding remains pending; (3) preserve her October 6, 2026 inability-to-pay statement; and (4) grant appropriate temporary relief concerning the payment-based delay in preparation of the reporter's records. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(a). Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus concerns, in relevant part, her appeal currently pending in our appellate cause number 13-26-00693-CV, and it relates to a previous original proceeding regarding a similar issue. See In re Welch, No. 13-26-00706-CV, 2026 WL 3257237, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 28, 2026, orig. proceeding) (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). 2 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 her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the emergency motion for temporary relief and the petition for writ of mandamus. Our ruling regarding this petition for writ of mandamus is without prejudice to any other matters that might be presented on this topic in the future. JON WEST Justice Delivered and filed on the 3rd day of November, 2026. 3