In Re Persian Marshall v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00126-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE PERSIAN MARSHALL

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1

Relator Persian Marshall filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which she

asserts that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by “signing an order that vacated a

prior judge’s orally rendered final judgment, thereby ordering a complete retrial on all

issues, when a less drastic remedy, such as a clarifying order under Texas Family Code

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).
§ 157.421 or a limited hearing, was available to address any purported lack of specificity”;

and (2) relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal to remedy the trial court’s error.

“Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy available only on a showing that

(1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) 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); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (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, 827

S.W.2d at 840.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain

relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.10. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JENNY CRON
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
23rd day of February, 2026.

2