Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Hinojosa.
LETICIA HINOJOSA JUSTICE. 
se petition for writ of mandamus, Thelma Doris Ferry seeks to
compel the respondent to "vacate and render null and
void the Order on Motion to Dismiss Thelma Doris Ferry's
Motion to Enforce Court Order on Petitioner's Amended
Motion to Compel Compliance of Temporary Spousal
Support" and to prevent the respondent from presiding
over any further matters related to trial court cause numbers
2013-FAM-4013-G and 2107-FAM-1027-H. Relator contends that the
respondent "clearly abused his discretion, acted in an
arbitrary and unreasonable manner, and deprived Relator of
procedural due process rights by not permitting Relator to
render testimony, present evidence, and without first
conducting a court hearing to determine the merits of the
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).
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 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).
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).
 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).
 Relator states that this original
proceeding arises from trial court cause number
2013-FAM-4013-G; however, the order at issue here was
rendered in cause number 2017-FAM-1027-H. This petition
originates 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.
This original proceeding was filed concurrently with two
other petitions for writ of mandamus which we decide by
separate opinions issued this same date. See In re
Ferry, No. 13-17-00630-CV, 2017 WL ___, at *___ (Tex.
App.-Corpus Christi Nov. ___, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op.); In re Ferry, No. 13-17-00632-CV, 2017 WL ___,
at *___ (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Nov. ___, 2017, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.).
Relator has previously filed an appeal and three
original proceedings in this Court. See In re Ferry,
No. 13-17-00615-CV, 2017 WL 4987143, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus
Christi Nov. 1, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying
relator's petition for writ of mandamus seeking 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 proceedings);
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