In Re Michael D. Johnson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 31, 2023
• Docket: 03-23-00169-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00169-CV

In re Michael D. Johnson

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Michael D. Johnson has filed a document styled as a “Statement in

Support of Criminal Allegations,” which we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus based

on the substance of his filing. See Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601

(Tex. 1999) (courts look to substance of pleading rather than its form or caption to determine its

nature). In his filing, Relator alleges that he was threatened by a district court judge during a

hearing in an underlying criminal proceeding. He also contends that two county police officers

conspired to commit a litany of criminal offenses in furtherance of allegedly false criminal

charges brought against Relator as part of that same proceeding.

Insofar as Relator seeks mandamus relief against the district court, he has failed to

demonstrate in his filing that the action he seeks to compel (if any) is a ministerial act, see In re

State ex rel. Tharp, 393 S.W.3d 751, 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012), or to explain the basis for our purported authority to consider his “criminal complaints.” 1 Nor has he provided an adequate

record of any material documents or authenticated transcript that would allow us to substantiate

the allegations contained in his filing. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a).

As to the officers referenced in the filing, this Court has no authority to issue a

writ of mandamus against those individuals unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, which is

not implicated here. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221 (establishing that intermediate appellate

courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus only against certain types of judges and to

enforce appellate courts’ own jurisdiction)

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Filed: March 31, 2023

1 Generally, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct has the authority to consider complaints alleging judicial misconduct or judicial disability, if any. See generally, e.g., In re Rose, 144 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Rev. Trib. 2004).