In Re Ronald Wayne Johnson v. the State of Texas
Opinion
Opinion issued January 4, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
of some staff in its prisons. However, it is unclear what relief, if any, Relator seeks from this Court.
To the extent Relator seeks relief through a writ of mandamus, we deny the petition for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a) (identity of parties and counsel), (b) (table of contents), (c) (index of authorities), (d) (statement of the case), (e) (statement of jurisdiction), (f) (issues presented), (g) (statement of facts), (h) (argument), (i) (prayer), (j) (certification), and (k) (appendix); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 (service); and TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (inclusion of sworn record); see also In re Hughes, 607 S.W.3d 136, 138 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (dismissing mandamus without prejudice for failure to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure).
If instead, Relator seeks relief though a writ of habeas corpus, his writ fails because this Court does not possess original habeas jurisdiction. As such, we lack jurisdiction to consider Relator’s writ. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05; see also Denby v. State, 627 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, orig. proceeding) (“The Courts of Appeals have no original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters; their jurisdiction is appellate only.”).
Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petitions. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are denied as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Landau and Rivas-Molloy. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In Re Ronald Wayne Johnson v. the State of Texas (In Re Ronald Wayne Johnson v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.