in Re Shawna Phalene Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 3, 2017
• Docket: 10-17-00102-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00102-CR

IN RE SHAWNA PHALENE JOHNSON

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Shawna Johnson was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of possession of

marijuana in an amount of four ounces or less but more than two ounces. We affirmed

her conviction on March 17, 2016. See Johnson v. State, No. 10-14-00263-CR, 2016 WL

1072610 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 17, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication). Johnson has now filed a document requesting that we please “forgive” her

sentence as “time served.” Johnson asks that we release her from her obligations to

McLennan County and, specifically, that the suspension on her driver’s license be

removed.

Johnson’s request is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board of

Pardons and Paroles. See Haliburton v. State, 578 S.W.2d 726, 728 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). We therefore construe the document filed by Johnson as a petition for writ of

mandamus requesting that we compel the Board of Pardons and Paroles to act according

to her wishes.1 However, we have no mandamus jurisdiction over the Board of Pardons

and Paroles. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004); In re Fowler, No. 14-15-00712-

CR, 2015 WL 5092623, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 27, 2015, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, Johnson’s petition

for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

REX D. DAVIS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Petition dismissed Opinion delivered and filed May 3, 2017 Do not publish [OT06]

1Johnson’s filing has many deficiencies. It lacks proof of service; a copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties and must contain proof of service. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 52.2. The filing also lacks most of the contents required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. Id. 52.3, 52.7. It does not include the certification required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j). Id. 52.3(j). It also lacks a record. Id. 52.7. To expedite this matter, we invoke Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend these requirements. Id. 2.

In re Johnson Page 2