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 

IN THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

CORPUS CHRISTI AND EDINBURG, TEXAS 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellant 

V. 

MICHAEL MAURER 

Appellee 

APPELLEE'S SECOND AMENDED BRIEF 

NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 

JOHN C. CONNOLLY 

1 004 Congress, 3 rct Floor 

Houston, TX 77002 

(713) 807-1800 

(832) 575-3350 Fax 

State Bar No. 04702000 

johnconnolly@ymail.com 

 FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 10/1/2015 3:34:22 PM DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk ------------------------ VOID ss ------------------------ RECEIVED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 10/1/2015 3:34:22 PM DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk
APPELLEE: 

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 

Michael Maurer, represented by 

Trial and Appellate Counsel: 

John C. Connolly 

1 004 Congress, 3 rct 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 

Trial and Appellate Counsel: 

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.