Court Opinion

ID: 9915813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 17:18:42.058868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:05.916107
License: Public Domain

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).

                                           3