In Re Constance Benavides A/ka Constance Chamberlain v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00115-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE CONSTANCE BENAVIDES A/K/A
CONSTANCE CHAMBERLAIN

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Relator Constance Benavides a/k/a Constance Chamberlain has filed a petition for

writ of mandamus alleging that respondent1 abused his discretion, leaving relator without

an adequate appellate remedy, by issuing an order on January 26, 2026, declaring her

supersedeas bond untimely and authorizing the issuance of a writ of possession. Relator

also requests “emergency temporary relief to stay enforcement of the writ of possession

1 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 2025-CCL-00863 in the County

Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County, Texas, and the respondent is the Honorable David Gonzales III.
pending resolution” of this original proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that:

(1) the trial court abused its discretion; and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on

appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (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).

According to relator’s petition and the record documents attached thereto, the trial

court’s final judgment of eviction was signed on December 11, 2025; it signed an order

setting a supersedeas bond amount on January 15, 2026; and appellant filed her

supersedeas bond on January 26, 2026. The supersedeas bond was not filed within ten

days of the final judgment of eviction. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion

in determining that the bond was untimely when it was filed more than a month after the

final judgment was entered. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.007 (“A judgment of a county

court may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days

of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set

by the county court.” (emphasis added)); Hernandez v. U.S. Bank Tr. N.A. for LSF8

Master Participation Tr., 527 S.W.3d 307, 310 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet.)

(holding, where trial court signed final judgment on September 23, 2016, but did not set

supersedeas amount until fourteen days later, that supersedeas bond was untimely under

§ 24.007 even though appellant filed his motion to set bond amount within the ten-day

period). We also note that there is nothing in the record, nor any argument, indicating that

this is a matter involving premises used for residential purposes only, which is the only

2
exception to the prohibition against appeals concerning the issue of possession. See TEX.

PROP. CODE § 24.007; In re Yogurt Culture, Inc., No. 01-18-00678-CV, 2018 WL 4568406,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 25, 2018, orig. proceeding) (supp. op. on reh’g)

(“A party to an eviction suit in a county court cannot use a writ of mandamus to accomplish

an appeal prohibited by [§] 24.007.”).

Having reviewed and fully considered relator’s petition and the documents

attached thereto, we conclude that relator has not met her burden to establish her

entitlement to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s request for emergency temporary relief is denied

as moot.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
30th day of January, 2026.

3