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 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re Christopher Vickers v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 13-26-00148-CV
• Nature of Suit: Mandamus

• Disposition: Motion or Writ Denied

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Motion or Writ Denied

Lead Opinion

NUMBERS 13-26-00146-CV, 13-26-00147-CV, 13-26-00148-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE CHRISTOPHER VICKERS

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

Relator Christopher Vickers filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the

trial court abused its discretion by: (1) modifying conservatorship and possession and

access without proper notice; and (2) modifying the conservator with the right to designate

the primary residence of minor children. The petition for writ of mandamus arises from

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
trial court cause numbers 2023-DCL-01268, 2025-DCL-6853, and 2026-DCL-59 in the

444th District Court of Cameron, County, Texas, docketed respectively in our appellate

cause numbers 13-26-00146-CV, 13-26-00147-CV, and 13-26-00148-CV. We address

each of these causes in this single memorandum opinion in the interests of judicial

efficiency and economy.

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

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (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); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (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); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the record, the applicable law, and the response filed by real party in interest Lena Cherie

Chaisson-Munoz, 2 is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief.

Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in these matters. See TEX. R. APP. P.

2 Lena has filed a motion for leave to file her response in each of these cause numbers and a

motion for leave to file an amended response in 13-26-00147-CV and 13-26-00148-CV. We grant her
motions, and we consider her response in each of these cause numbers on the merits.

2
52.10(b). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus in each of these cause numbers.

L. ARON PEÑA JR.
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
13th day of March, 2026.

3