In Re; Reshawn L. Johnson, Relator--Appeal from of County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-01-0371-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
FEBRUARY 14, 2002
______________________________
IN RE RESHAWN L. JOHNSON, RELATOR
_________________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
ON MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND ENFORCEMENT OF DECISION
Relator Reshawn L. Johnson previously filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus asking
us to order the Honorable Bradley S. Underwood, Judge of the 364th District Court of
Lubbock County, to enter an order on his “Motion for Intra-Loan for Trial Court Transcript”
so that he might prepare a pro se post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus.
We conditionally granted that petition.
Currently before us in the same proceeding is relator’s “Motion for Leave to File
Motion to Compel the Court to Recognize Defendant’s Request to Exercise Right to
Appeal,” in which he asks us to find that respondent has violated his rights because
respondent has failed as of January 7, 2002, to enter an order on his motion for loan of the
trial court transcript. Further, he requests that we grant his request for a loan of the trial
transcript “solely because Respondent has acted without reference to any guiding rules
or principles, and which acts was [sic] arbitrary and unreasonable.” Relator has also filed
a “Motion for Enforcement of Decision on Review” in which he asks that we enforce our
ruling on his petition for writ of mandamus.
We have received a supplemental record showing that the trial court entered an
order denying relator’s “Motion for Intra-Loan Trial Court Transcript” on December 6, 2001.
Therefore, relator has received the relief he requested by way of his petition for writ of
mandamus, i.e., the entry of an order by the trial court. His actual request for a loan of the
trial court transcript is not properly before the court at this time. For these reasons,
relator’s motions are overruled.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
