In Re Ronald Wayne Johnson v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Ronald Wayne Johnson v. the State of Texas (In Re Ronald Wayne Johnson v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion issued January 4, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00716-CR ——————————— IN RE RONALD WAYNE JOHNSON, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 5, 2023, Relator Ronald Wayne Johnson filed a document titled
“Criminal: Writ of Mandamus: [a]nd: Writ of Habeas Corpus.” Relator
subsequently filed: an "Amended [Petition for] Writ [of] Mandamus” on November
2, 2023; an “Exhibit” to his originally filed petition, titled “Writ of
Mandamus . . . to: County Judge George” on November 8, 2023; and a “Criminal
Mandamus: (Amended)” on December 13, 2023. In his filings, Relator appears to
challenge the policies of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the actions 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.
2 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Ronald Wayne Johnson v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ronald-wayne-johnson-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.