IN RE: DONALD WAYNE THIELEMAN--Appeal from 36th District Court of Aransas County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-08-00631-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE DONALD WAYNE THIELEMAN On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1 Relator, Donald Wayne Thieleman, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on July 25, 2008, seeking relief from an order directing the withdrawal of funds from relator s inmate trust account.2 The Court requested and received a response from real party in interest, the State of Texas, by and through the Criminal District Attorney in and for Aransas County, Texas. 1 See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) ( W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ); T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions). 2 This cause was originally docketed in this Court as a crim inal m atter. See In re Thieleman, No. 13-08-00450-CR, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS ___, at *1 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi Nov.12, 2008, orig. proceeding) (per curiam ) (m em . op.). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. Mandamus relief is proper only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding). This burden is a heavy one. See In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) In the instant case, relator has failed to meet this burden. The petition for writ of mandamus and accompanying documents do not establish a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. See generally TEX . R. APP. P. 52.3(h), 52.3(k), 52.7. Moreover, relator has not demonstrated that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Johnson, No. AP-75,898, slip. op. ΒΆ 22 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 29, 2008) (orig. proceeding), available at http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/HTMLOPINIONINFO.ASP?OPINIONID=17 534; Reed v. State, No. 04-07-00004-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 5085, at *20 (Tex. App. San Antonio July 9, 2008, no pet.) (op.); Abdullah v. State, 211 S.W.3d 938, 940-41 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2007, no pet.). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this 12th day of November, 2008. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
