In Re Ernie Alonzo, Michele Pena, Oscar Salinas, and Dr. Mario Salinas v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00340-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ERNIE ALONZO, MICHELE PENA, OSCAR SALINAS,
AND DR. MARIO SALINAS

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relators Ernie Alonzo, Michele Pena, Oscar

Salinas, and Dr. Mario Salinas assert that the trial court abused its discretion by:

(1) granting a “Motion to Disqualify and Show Authority and Motion to Strike [Relators’]

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).
First Amended Response and for Sanctions”; and (2) failing to rule on relators’ plea to the

jurisdiction.

“Mandamus is an extraordinary, discretionary remedy available only when a trial

court clearly abuses its discretion and a relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.” In

re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC, 627 S.W.3d 239, 247 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); see

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). “As a discretionary writ, mandamus relief is never available as a pure matter

of right or entitlement.” In re Bell Helicopter Servs. Inc., No. 24-0883, 2026 WL 1108684,

at *7 (Tex. Apr. 24, 2026) (orig. proceeding); see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d at 138.

“A trial court has no discretion in determining questions of law or applying the law

to the facts.” In re Lapuerta, No. 24-0879, 2026 WL 969263, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 10, 2026)

(orig. proceeding); see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding). However, “[a]ppellate courts may not substitute their judgment for the trial

court’s determination of factual matters committed to the trial court’s discretion.” In re

Shipman, 540 S.W.3d 562, 565 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see Walker,

827 S.W.2d at 839. Further, appellate courts “may not resolve disputed factual matters in

a mandamus proceeding.” In re Kay, 715 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Tex. 2025) (orig. proceeding)

(per curiam); see In re Rogers, 728 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam).

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

the response filed by real party in interest Paul Rocha as next friend of N.R., the additional

briefing filed by the parties, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that

2
relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for

writ of mandamus.2

JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the
9th day of June, 2026.

2 Relators filed an emergency motion to stay the trial court proceedings in this original proceeding.

They asserted that the underlying trial court proceedings are currently stayed pursuant to their appeal filed
in our appellate cause number 13-26-00350-CV challenging the trial court’s “implicit denial” of their plea to
the jurisdiction. Relators filed their emergency motion to stay “to be considered in the event the related
appeal is dismissed, and the automatic stay is lifted while this mandamus is pending.” By separate
memorandum opinion issued this same day, we have dismissed that appeal. See Alonzo v. Rocha, No. 13-
26-00350-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *__ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June __, 2026, no pet. h.)
(mem. op.). Given our disposition of this original proceeding, we dismiss relators’ emergency motion to stay
as moot.
3