In Re Scott Mitchell Obeginski v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00173-CV
__________________

IN RE SCOTT MITCHELL OBEGINSKI

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24-11-18234
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Scott Mitchell Obeginski filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion

for temporary relief. The trial court signed a Modified Final Judgment on October

17, 2025. On December 1, 2025, Relator perfected an appeal by filing a notice of

appeal in Trial Cause Number 24-11-18234 and an active appeal has been docketed

as Appeal Number 09-25-00487-CV, Scott Mitchell Obeginski v. Codilis & Moody,

P.C., et al. Relator complains that he filed an amended motion to vacate the final

judgment on March 27, 2026, and four supplements to this motion but the trial court

has failed to rule on the motion as supplemented.

1
We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by

the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “A trial

court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and

unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 839 (internal quotations omitted). A trial court also abuses its discretion

if it fails to correctly analyze or apply the law, because a trial court has no discretion

in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See In re Prudential

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

The trial court’s plenary power to modify the judgment expired before Relator

filed the motion contained in the appendix to his mandamus petition. See Tex. R.

Civ. P. 329b(e). Relator has not invoked the trial court’s power to enforce its

judgment, as the motion seeks to void the judgment, not to enforce it. See id. 308;

Cook v. Stallcup, 170 S.W.3d 916, 920 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.)

(“[E]nforcement orders may not be inconsistent with the original judgment and must

not constitute a material change in substantial adjudicated portions of the

judgment.”).

2
Relator has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly,

we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus as supplemented, and we deny the

motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on May 1, 2026
Opinion Delivered May 4, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

3