JUAN MIGUEL MATA 1732873

MCCONNELL UNIT

3001 S. EMILY DR.

BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102

August 27,2015

COURTS OF APPEAL

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

ATT: HONORABLE KEITH HOTTLE: CHIEF CLERK

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TX. 78205-3037

RE: TRIAL NO: 2714

COURT OF APPEALS NO: 04-15-00366-CV

STYLE: MARIA ELENA MATA

V.

JUAN MIGUEL MATA

Dear Honorable Hottle;

Please accept the enclosed foregoing instrument of Appellant Brief. Could

you file these document and docket them, bringing them to the attention of the

Honorable CourtBefore filing these brief could you, please attach copy of all the appendixes

filed in the previous proceeding of Writ of Mandamus No. 04-15-00214-CVhave cross reference everything from these number to these appeal no. 04-15-00366-CV.

A copy of the same has been forwarded; Hand delivered to the attorney at

record, County Attorney Daniel Gonzalez, for Maria Elena Hata.

My apology for the inconvenience if any about attaching copies that have

been filed in the Writ of Mandamus. Your valuable time and consideration is

greatly appreciated, if you have any questions or information, please do not

hestitace to contact me at the above address.

Sincerely;

MIGUEL MATA 1732873

APPELLANT: PRO SE

ENCLOSURE: APPELLANT BRIEF

APPENDIX (copy of the ORDER)

COPY OF NOTICE OF INTENT w/ MOTION TO SIGN ORDER

COPY OF DECLARATION TO INABILITY TO PAY ANY COST

cc; FILE

DANIEL GONZALEZ: DIMMIT COUNTY ATTORNEY ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT MARIA ELENA MATA

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS: SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
TRIAL NO. 2714

APPEAL NO. 04-15-00366-CV

TO THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

COURTS OF APPEALS DISTRICT

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

********************

IN THE MATTER OF

JUAN MIGUEL MAT*- APPELLANT

VERSUS

MARIA ELENA MATA-APPELLEE

********************

BRIEF FOR

AN APPEAL

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED]

rAPPELLANT/ ?RO SE

Me. CONNELL UNIT

3001 S. EMILY DR.

BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102-8696
IDENTITIES OP THE PARTIES

JUAN MIGUEL MATATDCJ-ID 1732873

Me. CONNELL UNIT

3001 S. EMILY DR.

BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102

MARIA ELENA FRAZIER f-k.aMARIA ELENA MATA

P.O. BOX 344

BURLEY/ IDAHO 83318

DIMMIT COUNTY COURTHOUSEc/o DANIEL GONZALE2; COUNTY ATTORNEY

103 NORTH 5th STREET

CARRIZO SPRINGS, TEXAS 78834

APPELLANT

APPELLE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLE

-2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES page

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES page

STATEMENT OF THE CASE page

ANY STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUEMENT page

ISSUES PRESENTED page

STATEMENT OF FACTS page 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENT page 12

ARGUEMENT page 13

PRAYER page 18

./^-.'i-i- page 19

-3-
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITIES PAGES

1. Cooke v. Cooke (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001) 13

65 S.W. 3d 785

2. In Re Cummings (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000) 14

13 S.W. 3d 472

3- James v. Hubbard (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998) 14

985 S.W. 2d 516

4. Pena v. Garza (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2001) 13

61 S.W. 3d 529

5. Striedel v. Striedel (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2000) 14

15 S.W. 3d 163

6. Williams v. Williams (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000) 14

19 S.W. 3d 544

7- Vongontard v. Tippit (App. Dist. 2004) 11

137 S.W. 3d 109

8. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 8/10

Article 5.05

9- Texas Civil Practice and Remedies 8/10

Section 16.064

10. Texas Family Code 12

Section 71.004

11. Texas Family Code 8/11,13

Section 81.001

12. Texas Family Code

Section 81.009

13. Texas Family Code 8/11/13

Section 82.002

14. Texas Family Code 8/11/13

Section 85.001

15. Texas Family Code 6/8

Section 85.025(b)

16. Texas Family Code 10

Section 87.001

17. Texas Family Code 10

Section 105.001

-4-
AUTHORITIES PAGE

18. Texas Family Code 6/8

Title 4

19. Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 13

Rule 52 (a)

20. United States Constitution

14th Amendment

-5-
STATEMENT OF CASE

Appellant, Juan Miguel Mata seeks an appeal, on qrounds that this Protective

Order No- 2714/ is not in accordance to Tex. Fam. Statutes/ Title 4. Appellant

agreed to this protective order, on insunations of the judge presiding in Dimmit

County Court. The trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to properly

apply the law to the undisputed facts, when it acts arbitrarity or unreasonably/

or when its ruling is based on factual assertions unsupported by the record.

Appellant NO longer AGREES. Appellant has sought review through properly filed

motions by third party servicing them to the County Clerks' Office/ as follows

are motions filed/ Motion to Modify, Motion to Quash, Motion to Examine Evidence,

Motion to Object, Motion to Sign Orders, and Motion to Appeal. The trial court

has acted bias toward the Appellant and has neglected the Honorable Francisco G.

Ponce ministerial duties to rule and make just determination, so therefore

Appellant desires to enter this appeal pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code 81.009, for

purposes of this ORDER be review, upon hearing pursuant to 85.025(b): Tex.

Fam. Code.

Appellant has filed Writ of Mandamus in these Honorable Court in where

Honorable Francisco G- Ponce voluntary recusal himself, and this Writ of Mandamus

is currently active under Court of Appeal No. 04-15-00214-CV. Please see files

for APPENDIXES cross reference to the references mentioned in this BRIEF.

-6-
ANY STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellant objects to oral argument to be permitted. Protective Order No.

2714 can be clearly and evidently seen that NO family violence was found in the

trial courts1 findings/ upon the State presenting the Application to the Dimmit

County Court. Evidence can be seen on page of the ORDER/ where the trial

judqe scratched out the markinq [X] that was presented by the Appellees'

Attorney/ and can be compare to the signing of the presidinq iudge on page to

page initials. Please see Appendix "A"/ Id. pg 2, 6.

No attachments were made by the Dimmit County Attorney at time of present

ing evidence. To be more precise/ NO REPORTS and or RECORDS were presented/ to

the trial court from law enforcement agency to sustain any arqument from the

State/ therefore appellant on evidence that the State and trial court have

judicially neglected the desposition of all motions filed/ and has brought evid

ence to compel Honorable Francisco G. Ponce on previous Writ of Mandamus No.

04-15-00214-CV. Appellants' confinement impairs the opportunity to be presently

present on any oral argument/ and appellant feels if oral arqument is allowed;

by any electronic communication would not be as effective to present and have

fair hearinq/ and cross examine any witness.

-7-
ISSUE PRESENTED

Appellee's attorney has Exercise Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction pursuant

to §16-064; Tex. Civ. Prac and Rem. Appellee is a non-resident of the State

of Texas since May 19/2014/ Please see Appendix "J", defined as Sworn Declar

ation to be a resident of the State of Idaho. Appellees' attorney entered

Motion to Extend/ exercising jurisdiction over non-resident on Seotember 16/2014/

and the Honorable Judqe Francisco G. Ponce exercise conflict of interest by

hearinq this action and siqninq ORDER/ despite that his Son Michael A. Ponce had

been attorney of record on Appendix "K", also please see Appendix "B".

Appellee's attorney did not entered evidence as described on Tex. Code of

Crim. P./ Article 5.05/ to support Appelle alleqations filed on separate

sheet to these application of protective order.

Trial Court VIOLATED Tex. Fam. Statutes/ Title 4, where NO Family Violence

was found in the trial courts' Findings/ and issued an ORDER aqainst the Texas

statutes, so therefore these ORDER is in VIOLATION to the followinq statutes;

Tex. Fam. Code §81.001, which clearly states, court SHALL render Protect

ive Order as provided by Tex. Fam. Code §85.001/ states IF the court FINDS that

Family Violence has Occurred and is likely to Occur in the future." Pursuant to

Tex. Fam. Code §82.002/ entitled "Who May File Application."

Trial Court has judicially neglected all his ministerial duties on not

rendering desposition on the motions properly filed with the Dimmit Countv

Clerk/ and upon his discretion of issuinq these ORDER, the coutt has altered the

statutes prescribed within the law. In accordance to Tex. Fam. Code §85-025(b);

states that "a person who is subject of protective order may file motion not

earlier than the first anniversary of the date on which the ORDER was rendered

requestinq that the court review—". The trial court has intentionally VIOLATED

Appellants' constitutional riqhts by not reviewinq these ORDER on properly filed

-8-
motion. Please see Appendix "E" and "G".

NO service of citation was ever served on ADpelant/ to oroDerlv inform

Aooellant in DUE PROCESS: 14th Amend.; U.S. Constitution of the application

for Protective Order or the Extension of the ORDER. Please see Appendix

"B thru D".

-9-
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Appellant, Juan Miguel Mata/ appeals uoon change of conditions that Appellee NO longer resides in the State of Texas. Please see Appendix "J", Applicants'

affidavit of residency of the State of Idaho, filed with Writ of Mandamus 04-

15-00214'JCV and all foregoing appendixes here in mentioned in these brief. The

ADDelles' Attorney has exercised Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction pursuant to

§16.064; Tex. Civ. Prac and Rem. According to Tex Fam. Code 85.005, states

protective order expires on the date the ORDER is ordered to expire, please

see Appendix "B" and "C".

Appellant, Juan Miquel Mata, NO lonqer AGREES to the terms and has reauested

for review. Appellant has entered Motion to Modify with title Motion to

Amend with governing code, pursuant to §87.001; Tex. Fam. Code, on November 3,

2014, Dlease see Appendix "E". Appellant parent-child relationship has been

affected and is causinq alienation of love that the children would naturally

have for their natural father.

Appellant appeals in conjunction to the lack of reports, and records, in

accordance to Tex. Code of Crim. P.; Article 5.05, to demostrate clear and con

vincing evidence, that evidence was indeed entered to suooort the alleaations

made by the Appellee. Appellant has filed Motion to Examine Rvidence in

reference to the allegations presented by Appellee throuqh the attornev of

record. In this Pro Se pleadinas, Appellant has reauested these reports and

records to be entered as evidence IF reports and records were made by Law

Enforcement Agency as described in these statute, describing the events within

these Protective Order. Appellee stated NO Law Enforcement Reports and Records

were ever entered with the application, to applv for protective order.

Appellant would like to examine such evidence to sustain this protective order

on allegations made by appellee, filed on separate sheet with the application.

-10-
Appellant has respectfully requested such reports/ but no reports or records

have ever been rendered/ as preponderance of evidence. motion has been filed

since November 3/2014, Dlease see Appendix "E" filed in Writ Brief 04-15-00214-

CV in these Honorable Court. Appellant filed these motion in an omnibus motion

for the trial court to review and hear all evidence but Honorable Francisco G.

Ponce has refused to hear and review all evidence in his official capacity/ so

therefore Appellant appeals to these Honorable Court to review these ORDER and

OVERTURN the trial courts decision.

Appellant has entered also Motion to Object on February 10/2015/ pursuant

to §§81.001, 85-001 and §82.002;Tex. Fam. Code, entitled/ "Who May File Applicat

ion," please see appendix "G". The trial court FINDINGS state "NO Family Viol

ence has occurred or is likely to occur." Please See Appendix "A" on page 2.

Trial Court upon discretion of his official capacity/ signed the ORDER in

VIOLATION to Texas Family Statutes and Codes described herein.

Appellant appeals due to the party has filed Motion to Quash on qrounds

that these protective order is in VIOLATION to Texas Family Statutes described

herein, on February 10/2015, and previously had filed motion on April 14/2015/

see Appendix "I"/ titled/ Motion to Appeal and Motion to Quash.

Appellant appeals pursuant to Vongontard v- Tippitt (App. Dist. 2004),

137 S.W. 3d 109, in which these protective order is final, appealable due to

it disposes of all parties and issues in these case.

-11-
SUMMARY OF ARG0B1ENT

Appellant objects to Protective Order No. 2714 for not being in compliance

to the Texas statues/ the Rules of Procedure are general rules, while statues

are specific; thus* when the two conflict/ the statue trumps the rule. Pena v.

Garza, 61 S.W. 3d 529. Also for an applicant to be eligible for protective

order/ under the guidelines of the code annotations and statues/ family violence

has occurred or is likely to occur. The disposition of this ORDER is in complete

judicial bias from the trial court because it does not follow the statues/ to

whom is entitled to such relief/ and who can apply. No family violence is found

in the trial courts findings as defined to^texas Family Section 71.004; as out

lined on page of the ORDER/ so therefore this ORDER should be VOIDED or QUASH.

-12-
ARGUMENTS

Appellant presents these appeal seeking that ORDER No. 2714 be void on

arguments and evidence brought by the appellant. Protective Order is in

VIOLATION to statutes described in Tex. Pam. 81.001, "Entitlement to Protect

ive Order", §85.001, "Required Findings and Orders", and 82.002, "Who May File

Application". Within these ORDER NO FAMILY VIOLENCE has been found in the Court

Findings, as stated in the ORDER, page 2, under Subtitle, "FINDINGS", the mark

[X], the County Attorney presented as Family Violence Occurred; the trial judge

scratched over the mark [X] and placed the presiding judges intials. Alternat

ively, if ORDER will not be VOID, that the ORDER be modified pursuant to §87.001

(a); Tex. Fam. Code and natural, biological children of the Appellant be excluded

from the ORDER.

Appellant presents these appeal because the trial court has maliciously

acted bias to the request of the appellant. "A party is required to obtain

ruling on the request, objection or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 52(a). Appellant

has properly filed these motions in the County Clerk's Office but Appellant has

not recieved no desposition. And changed conditions have Occurred.

In general, an appellate court has jurisdiction to review final and definite

judgements; final judgement fully disposes of all issues and all parties.

Protective Orders rendered pursuant to family code are final and appealable

orders as long as the orders dispose of all parties and all issues. Cooke v.

Cooke, 65 S.W. 3d 785 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001)

On challenge to the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to sup

port the issuance of protective order, the Court of Appeals applies the usual

standards of review, examining the evidence to see if there is any evidence to

support the findings, or if the evidence is so weak as to be clearly wrong and

manifestly unjust. Pena v. Garza, 61 S.W. 3d 529 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2001)

-13-
The court's objective in interpreting statues is to determine and give full

effect to the legislature's intent. If statue is clear and unambiguous on its

face/ statutory construction is not necessary, and the statute's words will be

given their plain and common meaning. Statues are presumed to have been enacted

by the legislature with complete knowledge of existing law and withreference to

it. The statutory definition of "court" and the legislature's -omission of

"jury" and "trier of fact" in family code provisions, providinq that the "court"

SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER FAMILY VIOLENCE OCCURRED AND RENDER PROTECTIVE ORDER IF

THE "COURT" FINDS FAMILY VIOLENCE, MAKE CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED THAT

COURTS, NOT JURIES, HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR

THE ISSUANCE OF FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDER. Williams v. Williams 19

S.W. 3d 544 (Tex.App.-Fbrt Worth 2000).

Order prohibiting family member from engaqinq in specified conduct for

period of one year was permanent injunction constitutinq appealable final order

even thouqh it was called "protective order"; duration of iniunction did not

depend on any further action by court. James v. Hubbard, 985 S.W. 2d 516

General principles of due process dictate that litiqant has right to

be heard and that the court must protect that riqht; opportunity to be heard

and present evidence must generally amount to more than a cursory opportunity

to cross-examine the other party's witnesses. Striedel v.. Striedel 15 S.W. 3d

163 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000)

The Fourth Court of Appeals has recently held that protective order is

one whose "duration does not depend upon further action by the trial court" and,

therefore, is "final" for purposes of appelate jurisdiction. In_r© Cummings,

13 S.W. 3d 472.

-14-
On January 20/2011, the Court heard the Application for Protective Order

of Maria Elena Mata< applicant- Upon being in the judges' office and not in

the County Court. The presiding judge; Honorable Francisco G. Ponce/ issued

protective ordfifwith NO Family Violence Findings. The ORDER was signed by the

influence of Honorable Francisco G. Ponce stating that appellant had the right

to hire an attorney but appellant would be wasting his economical resources be

cause it was the judges' discretion/ discouraging appellant to counsel with an

attorney. Appellant had NO knowledge that statue stated Family Violence has to

occur or is likely to occur to be entitled to protective order/ pursuant to

the Texas Family statues/ so therefore appellant was influenced to sign the ORDER.

On April 10/2015/ Appellant filed Writ of Mandamus to compel Honorable

Francisco G. Ponce to act on his ministerial duties. Appellant has properly

filed Motion to Modify on November 3/2014 at 2:55P.M. see Appendix "E", Motion

to Obiect on February 10/2015 please see Appendix "G"t Motion to Appeal and

Motion to Quash on April 14/2015 see Appendix "I", Motion to Sign Order and No

tice of Intent on May 15/2015/ please see Appendix"M". The Honorable Judge Fran

cisco G. Ponce presiding has failed to hear and make determination with least

possible delay/ on the motions properly filed by third party. In between this

motions; appellant has filed letters requesting ruling on this motions/ please

see Appendix "F/H/h". Appellant filed this letters requesting ruling on Jan

uary 23/2014/ see Appendix "F"; also Appellant filed second letter on March

20,2015 at 9:08A.M., see Appendix "H&h"; Appendix "F" was filed at 11:50A.M.;

to respectfully request the Honorable Judge Francisco G. Ponce to hear the mo

tion filed in his court/ by hand delivering this motions by third party/ and

letters.

Appellant brings an action on protective order no. 2714/ for review/ and

for this Honorable Court to render an equitable determination/ in where appellant

—15-
shows entitlement in equity and in law. A clear failure by the trial court to

analyze or apply the law correctly will constitue an abuse of discretion and

may result in appellate reversal.

On November 3/2014 at 2:55P.M., appellant challenqed the State to the legal

and factual sufficiency/ of evidence to support the issuance of protective

order. Appellant respectfully requested the County Attorney to provide the

local Law Enforcement Agency incident reports and records to substantial-evidence

rule to hold the allegations of appellee and the courts decision of these protect

ive order. Please see Appendix "E", page 6/ "Motion to Examine Evidence".

Appellant files these appeal/ pursuant to that its the Courts' objective to

interpret statutes to determine and give full effect to the legislatures' intent.

The statute's words will be given their plain and common meaning. Within the

statute, in order for protective order to be issue, family violence has occur

red and is likely to occur in the future, in these case NO family violence has

occurred and is likely to occur as defined in the family code statute. The

statute states the court shall determine whether family violence occurred and

render protective order if the court finds family violence, in trial no. 2714

and upon the execution of these ORDER/ the trial courts' determination are within

the FINDINGS on page of the ORDER/ No family violence occurred/ or is likely to

occur in the future. Please see Appendix "A".

One year anniversary has elapsed as stated in the statute and accordinq to

Texas statute, protective order of one year is permanent iniunction which

constitues of beinq final and appealable order, even thouqh it is called

"protective order". Therefore, the Fourth Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to

review and give full meaninq to-examine evidence to OVERTURN these ORDERAppellant respectfully request to be heard/ as to the trial court in Dimmit

-16-
County has VIOLATED the Appellants' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS to be heard upon properly

filed motions/ and changed conditions have occurred and taken placed/ since the

ORDER was SIGNED/EXECUTED.

This protective order/ upon the negligence of the Dimmit County Court/ to

rule on motions properlv filed/ does not depend on the duration/ upon further

action by the trial court/ so therefore/ is "final" for purposes of appelate

jurisdiction.

Appellant appeals the trial courts decision/ based on Final Divorce Decree

please see Appendix "K" attach to the Writ of Mandamus No. 04-15-00214-CV. This

■judgement rendered in the 365th District Court supersedes this protective order/

and in reference to this protective order and divorce decree/ they are conflictina orders/ affecting the parent and child relationship in the best interest of

the appellants' natural and biological children.

-17-
PRAYER

WHEREFORE/ PREMISES CONSIDERED/ Appellant prays to the Honorable Said

Court to issue the following ORDER to OVERTURN the trial courts1 ORDER. Ap

pellant prays that this ORDER be VOIDED or QUASHED/ alternatively Modify to

exclude the appellant natural and biological children from the ORDER/ upon the

jurisdiction of the Notice of Appeal and Motion to Appeal. Appellant prays for

such relief in law and in equity to which the Appellant shows just entitlement/

and that Appellants' pleadings are held less stringent than formal pleadings

drafted by lawyers. Appellant prays for all objections be sustain and general

relief and allnature sought in the Notice of Appeal and within the Appellants'

Brief.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

JUAN MIGUEL MATA 1732873

APPELLANT: PRO SE

Me. CONNELL UNIT

3001 S. EMILY DR.

BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102

-IS-
APPENDIX

Description

NO. 04-15-0.0214-CV

Appendix

Brief for Writ

of Mandamus

NO. 04-15-00366-CV

Appendix

Appellants' Brief

"Agreed" Protective "A"

Order; Trial Courts1

Judqement

2. "States'" Motion to Extend "B"

3. ORDER to Motion to Extend "C"

"States1"

4. Peace Officer Return "D"

Certificate of Service

5. Appellants' Motion to "E"

Amend/ Modify

6. Appellants' Letter REQUEST "F"

to Rule

"G"

"H"

7. Appellants' Motion to Object

8. Appellants' 2nd letter

requesting to rule

9. Appellants' letter delivered

to -judges office

10. Appellants' Motion to Appeal "I"

filed in County Clerks office

11. Appellee Affidavit of State of "J"

Idaho Resident; see paqe

12. Appellants' and Appellee "K"

Divorce Decree

13. Appellants' Inability to within the

Pay Cost writ

"A"

11B"

"C"

"E

"G"

"H"

11 h"

"I"

"J"

"K"

14. Appellants' Motion to Sign

Order and Notice of Intent

PLEASE SEE APPENDIXES THAT ARE ATTACH TO BRIEF FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FOR

REFERENCE FOR THESE BRIEF (APPENDIXES HAVE ALREADY BEEN FILED IN THE BRIEF,

NO APPENDIXES ARE ATTACH TO AVOID OVERFLOW OF DOCUMENTS)

-19-
UNSWORN DECLARATION

1/ Juan Miguel Mata, TDCJ-ID 1732873/ beinq presently incarcerated on the

McConnell Unit of Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division in

Bee County/ Texas; do declare under penalty of perjury that the above foregoing

instrument (Appellants' Brief) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Pursuant to Federal Law [28 U.S.C. 1746 and State Law (V.T.C.A. Civil Practice

and Remedies Code S§132.001-132.00311.

Executed on this the 27th day of August /2015.

73^72 JAN MIGtfEL MATA 1732873

APPELLANT: PRO SE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1/ Juan Miguel Mata/ 1732873/ Appellant do hereby certify that true and

correct copy of the above foreqoinq described as Appellants1 Brief has been hand

delivered by third party to Daniel Gonzalez; Dimmit County Attorney Appli

cants' Attorney at 103 N. 5th St./ Carrizo Springs/ Texas 78834.

Executed on this the 27th day of August /2O15.

MIGUEL MATA 1732873

APPELLANT: PRO SE

-20-
■-.

'.'"

IN THE MATTER OF

NO. 2714

MARIA ELENA MATA, APPLICANT

AND

JUAN MIGUEL MATA, RESPONDENT

IN THE COUNTY COURT

OF

DIMMIT COUNTY, TEXAS

On

ELENA MATA, applicant.

AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER

2011, the COURT heard the Application for Protective Order of MARIA

1. Appearances

Dimmit County appeared represented by the Dimmit County Attorney, Daniel M. Gonzalez.

Applicant Maria Elena Mata:

appeared in person and by attorney, _^

and announced ready.

[X appeared in person and announced ready.

did not appear and wholly made default.

[ ] record of the proceeding was waived.

Respondent, Juan Miguel Mata, having been duly and properly cited, and after having been

properly served with the application and notice of the hearing:

appeared in person and by attorney,

and announced ready.

X] appeared in person, made general appearance, was provided copy of the

Application and Amended Application For Protective Order, waived service and

announced ready.

did not appear and wholly made default.

record of the proceeding was waived.

2. Jurisdiction

The court, having considered the pleading and heard the evidence and argument of counsel,

finds that all necessary prerequisites of the law have been satisfied pursuant to Title 4, Family Code,

and that this court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this ca

True Copy of the original, Certify

the /£ day of S-epjo"<\btc,t 20

MARIO Z. GARCIA

Clerk, County Court

Diinmit County, Texas

By fltUM/jUUL&UJls Deputy

AT .O'CLOCK

MARIO Z.GARCIA CounNCferk, D^milCounty, Te>
Page

3. Findings

The Court finds thai applicants and respondent:

X] are members of the same family or household, or

have or have had dating relationship, as defined by Section 71.0021, Family Code.

The Court finds that:

^family violence, as defined by Section 71.004, Family Code, has occurred and is

likely to occur in the future, specifically that Respondent will continue to stalk Applicant.

[ ] the respondent violated previous protective order while it was in effect.

X] the parties have agreed to the terms of this protective order.

The Court finds that this protective order is in the best interest of the applicant, the family

or household, or member of the family or household.

The Court finds that applicant and Brandon M. Mata (06-19-2001), Mariela M. Mata (01-

23-2003) and John M. Mata (04-04-2006) are protected individuals under this order.

4. Orders Enforceable by Arrest

It is ordered that respondent is:

a. Prohibited from committing family violence as defined in 71.004 Family

Code or an act in furtherance of an offense under 42.072, Penal Code, against the applicant and

other protected individuals.

b. Prohibited from communicating directly with the applicant and other protected

individuals in threatening or harassing manner.

c. Prohibited from communicating threat through any person to the applicant or

the other protected individuals.

d. Prohibited from going within 200 feet of the residence of the applicant of the

other protected individuals located at 1206 North Ith Street, Carrizo Springs, Dimmit County,

Texas, or any other residence where applicant may reside.

e. Prohibited from going within 200 feet of the place of employment or business

of the applicant or the other protected individuals located (at) (with)

f. Prohibited from going within 200 feet of the childcare facility and school(s) of

Brandon M. Mata, Mariela M. Mata, and John M. Mata, located at Carrizo Springs Intermediate

School and Carrizo Springs Elementary School, Carrizo Springs, Dimmit County, Texas.

g. Prohibited from possessing firearm.

h. Prohibited from the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force

against an intimate partner or child that would be reasonably expected to cause bodily injury.

i. Prohibited from harassing, stalking or threatening protected individual or

engaging in conduct that would place protected individual in reasonable fear of bodily injury to

themselves or a child protected under this order.
Page

[ ] It is further ordered by the Court, after having found good cause, that respondent will

be required to participate in ten (10) hours of anger management and/or family counseling with

Maverick County Counseling Service, with the Department of Human Services, or some other

comparable counseling service.

It is further ordered by the Court, after having found good cause, that respondent is

prohibited from communicating in any manner with member of the family or household except

throueh __, the party's attorney, or person appointed by the Court.

It is further ordered that respondent is excluded from the residence located at

on or before

and the sheriff, constable or chief of police shall provide law enforcement officer, who shall:

a. accompany applicant to the residence covered by the order;

b. inform the respondent that the court has ordered that respondent be excluded from the residence;

c. protect the applicant while the applicant takes possession of the residence and

the respondent takes possession of the respondent's necessary personal property; and

d. if the respondent refuses to vacate the residence, remove the respondent and arrest the respondent for violating this order.

5. Orders Enforceable by Contempt

The Court hereby incorporates the following attached orders in this Protective Order:

Attachment A: Orders Concerning Children. [ ] Attachment B: Orders Concerning Property.

Attachment C: Orders Concerning Weapons.

[ ] Attachment D: Orders to Reduce the Likelihood of Violence.

6. Confidentiality of Certain Information

Pursuant to request by member of the family household, it is hereby ordered that the

address and telephone number of the following persons and places be excluded from this order:

a person protected by the order.

the place of employment or business of person protected by this order.

i.- i. ,. ,_., *e child-care fadlitv or sch°o1 child protected by the order attends or in which the child resides.

The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to strike the information listed above from the

public records of the Court, and maintain confidential record of the information above for the use only by the Court.
Page

7. Fees and Costs

It is ordered that respondent pay the following fees and costs:

Costs of court, including the protective order fee, costs of service of this order, and all other expenses incurred in connection with this order, in the amount of $154 25

payable on or by 2011, to the Office ofthe Dimmit County Clerk.

Reasonable and necessary attorneys fees in the amount of payable on or by to

8. Warnings

THIS ORDER MAY BE PUNISHED FOR

PROVISION OF THIS ORDER. DURING THE TIME IN

UNLESS COURT CHANGES THE ORDER.

MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY OFFENSE. IF THE ACT

OF THIS PROTECTIVE ORDER MAY
Page

9. Findings in Compliance with Federal Law

The court finds that:

participate. ReSpOndent received actual «** of *» bearing and had an opportunity to

States Code, sSST' ReSPOndeM "* '"^^ P""""8 PUKUaiM tO Title 18'

10. Order Forwarded

t0 *e sheri« of DIMMIT

11. Duration of Protective Order

0Cmtillue fa effect TANUARY 20.

SSoS hi ?, °n *e date Order would otherwise expire the Responded^ ^T^ "* ** °rder eXpireS On *e first anniversary date pt^l code confin^nt or imprisonment pursuant to Section sSk of the

12« Service of Protective Order This court finds that the order:

[X] has been served on Respondent in open court; or

[ ] has been served on Respondent's attorney; or

injunction; or perS°naIly Served on resP°ndent in the same manner as writ on

with Rule 21 A[ ilf3 pb? SeT^°M 'esP°ndent bv registered or certified mail in accordance wiin Kuie 21 A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedures.
Page

Signed and entered on (he day jffl /y$"'Ltf£'<***4 2011.

FRANCISCOG. PONCE,

DIMMIT COUNTY JUDGE

AMOVED TO FORM AND CONTENT:

Respondent- yRJAN'MIGUEL MAT

Address:

Date of Birth: 10-31-1974

SSN: 461-65-4977

TDL:

Applicant- MARIA ELENA MATA

Date of Birth: 04-23-1967

SSN: 635-32-9363

APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:

Respondent's Attorney

Address:

Phone:_

Fax:

SBN:

Daniel M. Gonzalez,

Dimmit County Attorney

Address: 103 North 5* Street, Suite 6B

Carrizo Springs, Texas 78834

Phone: 830-876-4236

Fax:830-876-4219

SBN: 00784144
DECLARATION OF INABILITY TO PAY COST

(The following Declaration is made pursuant to the Texas Rales of Civil Proced

ure, Tex.R.App.P. Rule 20, Chapter 132 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies

Code.)

COMES NOW, Juan Miquel Mata, TDCJ-ID 1732873, and declares that am un

able to pay the court costs in this Notice of Appeal,and request leave of the

Court to proceed in forma pauperis in this acconiDanvinq Notice to Appeal and

would show the Court the following:

(1) am presently incarcerated in the Me. Connell Unit of Texas Depart

ment of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division where am not per

mitted to earn or handle any money.

(2) have no source of Income or spousal income.

(3)1 currently have credited to me in the Inmate Trust Fund.

(4) During my incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division. have recieved approximately $120.00 per

month as gifts from relatives and friends.

(5) neither own nor have an interest in any reality, stocks, bonds, or

bank accounts and recieve no interest or dividend income from any

source.

(6) have dependents.

(7) have total debts of approximately 12,000.00 (child support incl.)

(8) owe g0.CO as restitution.

(9) My monthly expenses are approximately $900.00.

I, Juan Miguel Mata/ TDCJ-ID 1732873, being presently incarcerated in the

Me. Connell Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Div

ision, Bee County, verify and declare under penalty of perjury that the above

foregoing statements are true and correctEXECUTED on this the day of 2015

AJUAN MIGUEL MATA 1732873

APPELLANT: PRO SE
JUAN MIGUEL HATA #1732873

Me. CONNECT, UNIT

3001 5. EMILY DR.

BEEVILLE/ TEXAS 78102

May 8,2015

Dimmit County Courthouse

AIT: MARIO Z. GARCIA: DIMMIT COUNTY CLERK

103 N. 5th St.

Carrizo Sprinqs, Texas 78834

RE: ENCLOSED ARE ORIGINAL MOTION TO SIGN ORDER AMD NOTICE OF INTENT

STYLE: MARIA ELENA MATA V- JOAN MIGUEL MATA

TRIAL NUMBER: 2714

Dear Mr Garcia;

Please accept this letter and its attachment. Enclosed is a Motion to Siqn

Orders and Notice of Intent with its Corresponding Orders, Unsworn Declar ation and Certificate of Service.

Please file this Motion to Sign Orders and Notice of Intent, and docket it

within your docket sheet as you forward this foreqoinq instruments, to the

Honorable Court, and provide copy date stamped from the date vour office

recieved this delivering it to the third partv person.

Thank You for your assistance in this matter.

fUAN MIGUEL MATA #1732873

RESPONDENT: PRO SE

ENCLOSURE: ORIGINAL MOTION TO SIGN ORDER

NOTICE OF INTENT

cc: File

*** Mario Z. Garcia, Dimmit County Clerk***

Daniel Gonzalez, Dimmit County Attorney

Honorable Francisco G. Ponce Office

FILED DATE

AT

IL IS' .20

O'CLOCK7J3d

MARIO Z. GARCIA County Clerk, DimmiKlounty. Texa3

By
JUAN MIGUEL MATA #1732873

He- CONNELL UNIT

3001 S. EMILY DR.

BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102

May 8, 2015

Diramit County Courthouse

AW: HONORABLE FRANCISCO G. PONCE 103 N. 5th St.

Carrizo Sprinqs, Texas 78834

2714 (-AGREEDDear Honorable Francisco G. Ponce;

copy of the Motion to Siqn Orders and

You vour a3siatance and

Via Hand Deliver

is

the

ENCLOSURE: ORIGINAL MOTION TO SIGN ORDER NOTICE OF INTENT

JUAN MIGUEL MATA #1732873

RESPONDENT: PRO SE

File

Mario Z. Garcia, Dimmit County Clerk

£aniel?°nZalez' Diimit bounty Attorney Francisco G. Ponces' Office*****

iff. £r
IN THE MATTER OP

MARIA ELENA MATA, APPLICANT

AND

NO. 2714

JOAN MIGUEL MATA, RBSPONnRNT

MOTION TO STEM

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT;

COHES N0W( JUAN MICUEL

IN THE COUNTY COURT

OF

DIMMIT COUNTY, TEXAS

show the followinq:

.m #1732873,

for cause

on 3, to Modify,

wotlon

And

..^
clerks' office bv third p.rty hand delivers this fo,Molng ln3truments

of to date no rulino, corresoondence, detecminetion or re3Donse haa

from this Honorable Court or the Di«it Countv clerk's office.

IOTICB OP IM1TM1'

COMES «,. JUAN HIGUE, HATA, »,.„ 1M)l ^^ fa

entitled and no*erea cause, files thia notzce OP ITO purauant to

, , and £or

followinq;

Thia Honorable Court haa faUed to rule on rotiona oroperlv filed in the

Clerks Office. Reaoondent haa aeeWed reUef throu* nearino of review, to

determination on thia .otiona with the least, effic.ent, possib.e delav

and has been unSuccessful. Hes^ent ha, leaa> inCerest in tHia proceeding

and ia reaoectfuUv reauestinq to be heard.

If no response is render Respondent wi,, Oroceed to «,. an

for writ or Mandamus, with it3 corres^in, brief. «ter 30 business

of this motion and notlce;have

«-"= «*»* Clerks 0«ice, no response or correspondence such actiona win commence.

BMYBt

mERE^ PREMISES

Court to issue the followinq orders;

Hespondent pravs for rulinc, determination, or response on this motions properly filed in this Court.

Respondent pravs protective order ,271, be qa^ma UEOn

»3«. alter^tivelv that this order be ^ied, at last

all

°" tte ^ie« °f '"3 motions, pravs the Honors court wleh
Respondent prays for such reHef in law and in equity to which the Respondent

shows just entitlement.

Respondent prays for general relief and all nature sought.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED;

MIGUE©MATA; ATfc; #1732873

PONDENT; PRO SE

Me. CONNELL UNIT

3001 S. EMILY DR.

BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102

DECLARATKIfJ

the the Me. Connell?^Unit of the Texas Der3' bab» PresentlV PV incarcerated incarcerated onon

Unit of the Texas Depart of criminal .ustice-mstitutioL

Division in Bee County, Texas: do deciare under penalty of perjury that the

instrument is true and correct to the best of *y Knowledge. Pur

suant to Federal law [28 U.S.C. 1746 and State Law (V.T.c.A. civil Practice and Remedxes Code 132.001-132.003)]. practice

Executed on this the _£^__day of H^ 2015.

JUAN Ml^UKL MATA #1732873 RESPONDENT; PR9 SE

OP

I, Juan Miguel Mata, Respondent, do hereby cerify that true and correct

,lO3 :j3,;hT"•78834andMarioz- N. 5th; Carrizo Springs, TX. 78834,

Executed on this the f* dav of 2015

1732873"
IN THE MATTER OP

MARIA ELENft MATA, APPLICANT

AND

JOAN MIGUEL MATA, RESPONDENT

No. 2714

IN THE COUNTY COURT

OP

DIMMIT COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER

ON THIS DAY, came to be heard this Motion to Sign Order, pursuant to

V.T.C.A. Government Section 12OS.CT

*. court havin, heacd all euidence apd ^^ ^^

***** is entiUed to a nearino and suoh 0RDER be viewed, o0en,

or vacated, pursuant to and in accordance to Section as.o^M. .,.■

court PIMDS that Respondent «0 ionoer AGREES and the Court is of

OPINION to:

GRANT

DENIED

the signinq of any correspondinq order to the motions properly filed.

SIGNED this aav of

/A.D. 2015.

HONORABLE FRANCISCO G. PONCE DIMMIT COUNTY JUDGE