Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re J.M.B. II v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 03-26-00236-CV
• Nature of Suit: Mandamus

• Disposition: Conditionally Granted

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Conditionally Granted

Lead Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-26-00236-CV

In re J.M.B. II

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

We will conditionally grant relator J.M.B. II’s petition for writ of mandamus in

which he requests that we order the trial court to dismiss the juvenile delinquency case

against him.

In the trial court, the State filed a petition alleging that Relator engaged in

delinquent conduct. On February 25, 2026, before an adjudication hearing, the State filed its

First Amended Motion to Dismiss in which it “move[d] for a non-suit in the interest of justice.”

After expressing concerns in open court about judicial confessions and community safety, the

trial court dismissed the case consistent with the State’s motion. The next day, however, the trial

court signed an Order Vacating Nonsuit and Dismissal. That same day, the court set an

adjudication hearing for March 11, 2026.

Relator filed this mandamus petition and sought emergency relief. Relator asked

that we direct the trial court to cancel the adjudication hearing and to dismiss the case. We

stayed the adjudication hearing pending our consideration of the merits of this petition. The

State filed a response positing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its grant of the
State’s motion to dismiss. The State asked that we find that Relator met the standard for

mandamus relief. The trial court did not file a response.

Mandamus relief is appropriate where the trial court clearly abuses its discretion

and there is no other adequate remedy at law. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 838 (Tex.

1992) (orig. proceeding). A court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying

the law to the facts. Id. at 840. Thus, a court's erroneous legal conclusion, even in an unsettled

area of law, is an abuse of discretion. Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239, 257 (Tex. 2001) (orig.

proceeding); Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 927–28 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding).

The trial court had no discretion to refuse to dismiss the case after the State filed

its motion to dismiss and nonsuit of its claims and, accordingly, lacked discretion to vacate its

order dismissing the case. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure govern juvenile delinquency

proceedings except for the State’s burden of proof or when other rules and laws conflict. See

Tex. Fam. Code § 51.17(a); In re L.M., 993 S.W.2d 276, 280 n.3 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet.

denied) (recognizing that proceedings regarding juveniles are governed by Family Code). “At

any time before the plaintiff has introduced all of his evidence other than rebuttal evidence, the

plaintiff may dismiss a case, or take a non-suit, which shall be entered in the minutes.” Tex. R.

Civ. P. 162. “A party has an absolute right to file a nonsuit, and a trial court is without discretion

to refuse an order dismissing a case because of a nonsuit unless collateral matters remain.”

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010). This provision applies to

juvenile delinquency cases. See In re S.B.C., 805 S.W.2d 1, 9 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1991, writ

denied) (noting that State may file non-suit of juvenile delinquency petition pursuant to Rule

162); see also Matter of B.E.S., No. 01-22-00020-CV, 2022 WL 3722402, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2
The trial court abused its discretion by vacating its dismissal order. The State had

the right to dismiss its petition by filing a nonsuit under Rule 162. In the absence of other

pending claims for affirmative relief, the trial court correctly dismissed the case. Its Order

Vacating Nonsuit and Dismissal, however, effectively denied the motion and notice of nonsuit as

shown by the court’s resetting of the case for adjudication. Despite its concerns about judicial

confessions and community safety, the trial court had no choice but to grant the motion to

dismiss and enter the nonsuit on its minutes. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 162. The trial court properly

dismissed the case, but abused its discretion by vacating that dismissal.

We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court

to vacate its February 26, 2026 Order Vacating Nonsuit and Dismissal and to sign an order

granting the motion to dismiss and to enter the nonsuit in its minutes. The writ will issue only if

the trial court refuses to act in accordance with this opinion.

---

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justices Byrne, Justices Theofanis and Crump

Filed: March 26, 2026

3