In Re: Ashley Nicole Horne v. the State of Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed June 7, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00464-CV

IN RE ASHLEY NICOLE HORNE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-03505

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Smith
In her April 18, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relator sought relief from

the trial court’s denial of her demand for jury trial and certain aspects of the trial

court’s temporary orders. In a memorandum opinion and order dated April 24, 2024,

the Court denied relator’s requested relief. On April 25, 2024, relator filed a Motion

for Rehearing and Leave to Amend Petition and an amended mandamus petition.

We deny the motion for rehearing, grant the motion for leave to amend

petition, withdraw our opinion and vacate our order of April 24, 2024, and issue this

new memorandum opinion and order of this date in their place.
On original submission, the Court denied relief because relator failed to

provide a certification that satisfied the requirements of rule 52.3(j), and we noted

that relator had omitted a statement of the case and did not support her statement of

facts with citations to competent evidence included in the appendix or record.

Relator moved for rehearing and filed an amended petition that complies with the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and seeks the same relief as the original petition.

Because relator had removed the technical grounds on which the Court’s

memorandum opinion rested, the Court requested a response to the motion for

rehearing and the amended petition. Real party in interest filed a response, and

relator filed a reply. We now consider the merits of relator’s amended petition.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.

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

proceeding). After reviewing relator’s amended petition and the record before us,

we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny relator’s amended petition for writ of mandamus. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We also lift the stay issued by this Court’s May 17, 2024

Order.

/Craig Smith/
CRAIG SMITH
240464F.P05 JUSTICE

–2–