In Re J.P.S. v. the State of Texas
Court
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided
June 2, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Practice Areas
Case Summary
NUMBER 13-25-00291-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE J.P.S. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1 By petition for writ of mandamus, relator J.P.S., a juvenile, asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by not following our mandate and by allowing the State to proceed on a petition for determinate sentence that was filed after we reversed and remanded the case in a previous appeal. See In re J.P.S., No. 13-24-00120-CV, 2024 WL 3199186, at **1–5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 27, 2024, no pet.) 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). (mem. op.). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). However, a juvenile proceeding is quasi- criminal in nature, and the application of civil or criminal analyses in such cases vary depending on the circumstances presented. See In re L.D.C., 400 S.W.3d 572, 574 (Tex. 2013); In re D.I.B., 988 S.W.2d 753, 756 (Tex. 1999); see also In re State ex rel. Saenz, No. 13-23-00530-CR, 2024 WL 49506, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 3, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 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. YSMAEL FONSECA Justice Delivered and filed on the 2nd day of June, 2025. 2
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
NUMBER 13-25-00291-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE J.P.S.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1
By petition for writ of mandamus, relator J.P.S., a juvenile, asserts that the trial
court abused its discretion by not following our mandate and by allowing the State to
proceed on a petition for determinate sentence that was filed after we reversed and
remanded the case in a previous appeal. See In re J.P.S., No. 13-24-00120-CV, 2024
WL 3199186, at **1–5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 27, 2024, no pet.)
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). (mem. op.).
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court
clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on
appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding). “The
relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.,
492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827
S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). However, a juvenile proceeding is quasi-
criminal in nature, and the application of civil or criminal analyses in such cases vary
depending on the circumstances presented. See In re L.D.C., 400 S.W.3d 572, 574 (Tex.
2013); In re D.I.B., 988 S.W.2d 753, 756 (Tex. 1999); see also In re State ex rel. Saenz,
No. 13-23-00530-CR, 2024 WL 49506, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan.
3, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
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.
YSMAEL FONSECA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the 2nd day of June, 2025.
2
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 2, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools