in Re Carlton Sewell
06-15-00032-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jul 16, 2015Background
- Original Proceeding for writ of mandamus in Sixth Court of Appeals Texarkana involving Carlton Sewell as Relator.
- Real Parties in Interest contested the petition and responded to the mandamus petition.
- Sewell failed to timely respond to May 13, 2010 Requests for Admissions, resulting in deemed admissions.
- Trial court delayed trial to hear a motion to withdraw deemed admissions; later rulings denied some withdrawals for lack of good cause.
- Court held Sewell failed to show good cause and that delay caused undue prejudice to Real Parties in Interest; petition for mandamus denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good cause required to withdraw deemed admissions | Sewell contends good cause exists due to pro se status | Real Parties argue pro se status alone is insufficient; must show accident or mistake | No good cause shown; withdrawal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Steffan v. Steffen, 29 S.W.3d 627 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (good cause required; conscious indifference noted in similar context)
- Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2005) (mailbox/rule compliance; conscious indifference considered)
- Jones v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 235 S.W.3d 333 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007) (pro se status not per se good cause; timely response to first request emphasized)
- Morgan v. Timmers Chevrolet, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 803 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (discovery impact; admission withdrawal during trial; reliance on deemed admissions impacted outcome)
- Boulet v. State, 189 S.W.3d 833 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (undue prejudice from delay in trial when withdrawing admissions)