In Re Matthiew Adrian Alirol v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00243-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE MATTHIEW ADRIAN ALIROL

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Matthiew Adrian Alirol asserts that the trial

court abused its discretion by granting a new trial after the parties entered an agreed

divorce which was approved by the trial court.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. In re K & L Auto

Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 247 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins.

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).
Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827

S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator must ordinarily show that:

(1) the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion; and (2) the relator lacks an

adequate remedy on appeal. In re Dallas HERO, 698 S.W.3d 242, 247 (Tex. 2024) (orig.

proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker, 827 S.W.2d

at 839–40. “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. “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); see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d at 136–37.

An order granting a new trial that improperly sets aside a jury verdict is an abuse

of discretion for which there is no remedy by appeal. See, e.g., In re Lapuerta, No. 24-

0879, 2026 WL 969263, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 10, 2026) (orig. proceeding); In re Rudolph Auto.,

LLC, 674 S.W.3d 289, 298 n.5 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding); In re Columbia Med. Ctr.

of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 209–10 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding).

However, a remedy by appeal is ordinarily adequate for an order granting a new trial

following a bench trial. See, e.g., In re Hardy, No. 08-26-00095-CV, 2026 WL 1096282,

at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso Apr. 22, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“Entitlement to

mandamus review of an order granting a new trial depends on whether the order follows

2
a jury trial, or whether there exists extreme circumstances.”); In re Velasquez, No. 04-25-

00091-CV, 2025 WL 1063434, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 9, 2025, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (“Because we hold the trial court's order is not void and decline

to extend mandamus review to orders granting a new trial after a bench trial, we deny the

petition for writ of mandamus.”); In re Ramos, No. 13-20-00429-CV, 2021 WL 1177613,

at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Mar. 29, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(“[T]his Court and others have generally not applied mandamus review to new trial orders

following non-jury dispositions.”).

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

the response filed by real party in interest Amanda Williams, 2 and the applicable law, is

of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Specifically, the order at

issue is not void, and the record fails to indicate the presence of extraordinary

circumstances which would render a remedy by appeal inadequate in this case.

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
12th day of May, 2026.

2 Williams has filed a “Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Mandamus Record and to Supplement

with Certified Copies.” We grant this motion in part and dismiss as moot in part. We grant Williams’s motion
for leave to file the supplemental mandamus record, and we consider the supplemental mandamus record
as filed. We dismiss as moot Williams’s motion to the extent that she seeks to supplement the record in the
future with certified copies.

3