In Re: Stephen Clay Johnston--Appeal from of County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-11-00198-CR ______________________________ IN RE: STEPHEN CLAY JOHNSTON Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter MEMORANDUM OPINION Stephen Clay Johnston filed this petition for writ of mandamus for the purpose of stat[ing] that he is innocent of the charges for which he is incarcerated. He complains that the trial court has had 86 days . . . to answer these motions. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law when no other adequate remedy by law is available. State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1984) (orig. proceeding). Due to the nature of this remedy, it is Johnston s burden to properly request and show entitlement to the mandamus relief. See generally Johnson v. Fourth Dist. Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ( Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ). The title or substance of the motions allegedly sent to the trial court, and the respondent of Johnston s complaints are not indentified in this unintelligible petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Johnston s petition for writ of mandamus. Jack Carter Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: October 3, 2011 October 4, 2011 2 Do Not Publish 3
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.
