In Re Kamilah Antoinette Johnson v. the State of Texas

CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
DecidedJune 2, 2026
Docket01-26-00554-CR
StatusPublished

This text of In Re Kamilah Antoinette Johnson v. the State of Texas (In Re Kamilah Antoinette Johnson v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Kamilah Antoinette Johnson v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

Opinion issued June 2, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00554-CR ——————————— IN RE KAMILAH ANTOINETTE JOHNSON, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Kamilah Antoinette Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a

writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court had “failed and refused to rule” on

two pro se motions she allegedly filed in the underlying criminal cause, including a

“Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant” filed on or around January 20, 2025, and a

“Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction” filed on or around March 5, 2025 and April 6, 2026.1 Relator’s mandamus petition argued

that the “trial court ha[d] a ministerial duty to rule on pending motions,” and that the

trial court’s failure to do so amounted to an abuse of discretion for which relator

lacked an adequate remedy. Relator’s petition requested that this Court grant her

petition for writ of mandamus and order and compel the trial court to “immediately”

rule on her pending motions, “[e]nter an order quashing the outstanding warrant” in

the underlying cause, and to “[i]mmediately expunge [r]elator[’]s record of all

fraudulent criminal infractions associated with this tax matter.”

Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that she has failed to

establish that she is entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(l),

52.7(a)(1); see also In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017);

In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig.

proceeding). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Kamilah Antoinette Johnson, Cause Number 1855185, pending in the 496th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Dan Simons presiding.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Powell v. Hocker
516 S.W.3d 488 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re Kamilah Antoinette Johnson v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kamilah-antoinette-johnson-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp1-2026.