State v. Michael Maurer

Opinion

ACCEPTED 13-15-00169-CR THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 10/1/2015 3:34:22 PM Dorian E. Ramirez CLERK

NO. 13-15-00169-CR

FILED- IN - IN THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF13th COURT APPEALS - - ----- OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, --- TEXAS - - ---- ss ------ 10/1/2015 - ID ---3:34:22 PM - - ---- VO TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI AND EDINBURG, -- DORIAN- - - ---- E. RAMIREZ - ---- Clerk

THE STATE OF TEXAS RECEIVED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS Appellant CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 10/1/2015 3:34:22 PM V. DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk

MICHAEL MAURER

Appellee

APPELLEE'S SECOND AMENDED BRIEF

JOHN C. CONNOLLY 1004 Congress, 3 rct Floor Houston, TX 77002 (713) 807-1800 (832) 575-3350 Fax State Bar No. 04702000 johnconnolly@ymail.com

NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

APPELLEE: Michael Maurer, represented by

Trial and Appellate Counsel:

John C. Connolly 1004 Congress, 3rct Floor Houston, TX 77002

APPELLANT: The State of Texas, by the District Attorney for Nueces County, represented by

Appellate Counsel:

A. Cliff Gordon, Asst. Dist. Atty. 901 Leopard St., Room 206 Corpus Christi, TX 7840 1

Mark Skurka, District Attorney Dulce Salazar Valle, Asst. Dist. Atty. 901 Leopard St., Room 206 Corpus Christi, TX 78401

.. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ............................... .ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................. .iv

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................ v

ISSUE PRESENTED ............................................................ vi

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................... l

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .......................................... 2

ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 3

PRAYER ............................................................................ 4

CERTIFICATE OF CO~LIANCE ............................................ ~

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................... 5

111 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

State v. Jolly, 446 S.W. 3rd 613 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2014, no.pet)

lV 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Defendant concurs with the State's STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

v ISSUE PRESENTED

Defendant concurs with the State's ISSUE PRESENTED

Vl STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendant generally concurs with the State's STATEMENT OF FACTS.

However, the State fails to note that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was filed

subsequent to the setting of the case for trial by the COURT.

1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The case was set for trial by the trial court. There is no evidence in the record that

the District Attorney's Office had any involvement in the case being set for trial.

It is therefore safe to assume that but for the action of the trial court, this case

would remain in an inactive status indefinitely into the distant future. The State

initiated the prosecution, and the State has not only the burden of proof, but the

burden to move forward with the evidence. The State failed to meet its burden, but

yet now asks the Court of Appeals to reward this behavior over 8 years after

initiating this prosecution. The Defendant urges this Court to reject the rationale

and holding in State v. Jolly, 446 S.W. 3rd 613 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2014, no.pet)

and affirm the trial court's order dismissing the charges.

2. ARGUMENT

The trial court correctly dismissed the charges against Defendant on speedy

trial grounds.

Two (2) factual matters differentiate State v. Jolly, 446 S.W. 3rd 613 (Tex. App.

Amarillo 2014, no.pet) from the case at hand:

1. Defendant offered sworn, unrebutted testimony regarding the prejudicial

results of the 8 year delay. No such testimony was offered in Jolly.

2. In Jolly, the State , apparently recognizing its negligence in the delay of

prosecution, was responsible for setting the case on the trial docket. In the

case at hand, no such evidence exists. But for the trial court's initiative in

setting the case for trial, this case would remain in judicial limbo.

3. PRAYER

For these reasons, Defendant urges this Court to reject the rationale and holding m

State v. Jolly, 446 S.W. 3rd 613 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2014, no.pet) and affirm the

trial court's order dismissing the charges.

JOHN C. CONNOLLY 1004 Congress, 3 rct Floo Houston, TX 77002 (713) 807-1800 (832) 575-3350 Fax State Bar No. 04 702000 johnconnolly@ymail.com Counsel for Appellee

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

According to the word count of the computer program used to prepare this

document, it contains 621 words.

4. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on September 29, 2015, I faxed a true copy of this Amended

Briefto the following counsel: A. Cliff Gordan, (361) 888-0399.

Attorney for Appellee

5.