CourtListener 10781586•In Re Mitchell William Blakeley v. the State of Texas
In Re Mitchell William Blakeley v. the State of Texas
CourtListener 10781586Txctapp926 janv. 2026
Texte intégral
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-26-00032-CV
__________________
IN RE MITCHELL WILLIAM BLAKELEY
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
418th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 25-05-07297
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mitchell William Blakeley filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a
motion for temporary relief. Relator Mitchell William Blakeley seeks to compel the
trial court in the underlying suit for divorce and custody (1) to vacate an Order on
Motion for Interim Attorney’s Fees and Expenses and Trial Retainer dated January
14, 2026, (2) to vacate the trial court’s Order on Petitioner’s Motion for Leave dated
January 14, 2026, and (3) to grant leave to Relator to allow him to designate George
S. Glass, M.D. as an expert. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.502(a)(4); Tex. R. Civ. P.
193.6.
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). “An
abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable,
made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence.” In re
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). 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 Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
Having reviewed the petition for a writ of mandamus and the record submitted
with the petition, we conclude that the Relator has not shown that he is entitled to
mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and the
motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a), 52.10.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 23, 2026
Opinion Delivered January 26, 2026
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.
2
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.