### Cause **No.**

**IN THE**  **FOURTH COURT**  **OF APPEALS**  **FOR THE**  **STATE OF**  **TEXAS**

**IN RE**  **BENJAMIN ELIAS** 

**APPLICATION FOR** **WRIT OF**  **MANDAMUS**

**In Trial**  **Cause No.**  **427052 Writ** **No. 2704**  **from the**  **Twelfth County** **Court of**  **Law for**  **Bexar County,**  **Texas.** 

# ��TA� **B� nElias,**  

### pro **se TDCJ-ID**  **No. 819778**  

### 0.8. **Ellis Unit**  **1697**

### FM **980** 

### Huntsville, **Texas 77343.**  **04 - 17 - 00722 - CR**RELATGR: Counsel: Mailing Address:

RESPONDENT: Counsel: Mailing Address: IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL Benjamin Elias Pro se D.B. Ellis Unit 1697 FM 980 Huntsville, Texas 77343.

Scott Roberts Unknoun Dustice Center 300 Dolorosa, 2nd Fl. San Antonio, Texas 78205-3005.

iii.TABLE OF COMTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL iii. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES v. STATEMENT OF CASE 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 2 ISSUES PRESENTED 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 ARGUMENT k-5 PRAYER 5 CERTIFICATION 6 APPENDIX 7-40 EXHIBIT 1 8 Relatar*s Original liirit of Habeas Corpus uith Certified Mail Card and Return Receipt 9-37 EXHIBIT 2 38 Letter of Inquiry to Respondent uiith Certied Mail Card and Return Receipt 39-40

IV.IMDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.10 k Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.11 k Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 52 2 Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Riile-i52.1 2 Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 72.1 2

V.STATEMENT OF CASE On May 16th, 2017, Relator filed an Application for IJrit of Habeas Corpus with the Twelfth County Court of Law for Bexar County regarding constitutional violations resulting from a driving while intoxicated prosecution. State v. Elias, Cause No. k21Q52 (12th Cty Ct., Bexar Cty. Tex., June 13, 201if). See Appendix, Exhibit 1, Application for Urit of Habeas Corpus, Procedural History, pp. 1-2. The Bexar County Clerk received said application and assigned it Urit No. 2704. The presiding judge has not set a date for hearing or ruled on said writ.Relator is currently confined to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division at the O.B. Ellis Unit in Walker County, Huntsville, Texas. He is unlawfully restrained of his liberty as a collateral consequence to the above-referenced misdemeanor charge and has been since May 2013. At the time said charge was filed, Relator was on parole for an unrelated case. See State V. Elias, Cause No. 970D11232, 243rd Judicial District Court of El Peso County, Texas, final judgment April IB, 2001. As a collateral consequence of said misdemeanor DDI, he was arrested and confined. Relator is currently confined due to his subsequent parole revocation. Respondent, Honorable Judge Scott Roberts, has not set a date for hearing nor ruled on said writ. Mr. Roberts is the presiding judge for the Twelfth County.iCourt of Law for Bexar County, Texas. He was the presiding judge at 

### Relator's trial and is the current judge for the- Twelfth County Court of Law. By delaying a hearing, he is in fact prolonging Relator's confinement.STATEMENT OF 3URISDICTIDW
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 72.1, Relator is required to file an Application for Leave to File tilrit of Handatnusiin order for the court of appeals to exercise original jurisdiction. Relator submitted said application uiith this original petition for urit of mandamus. Further, this Application for lilrit of Mandamus complies uith the stiplulations set forth by Rule 52 of the TRAP regarding form and content. Rule 52.1, states:
"An original appellate proceeding sbeking extraordinary relief—^uch as a iiirit of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, injunction, or quo uarranto is commenced by filing a petition uiith the clerk of the appropriate appellate court..."
The Fourth Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction over cases originating in Bexar County and therefore conferred jurisdiction to rule on this urit of mandamus.

ISSUES PRESENTED Respondent's failure to conduct a hearing regarding Relator's uirit of habeas corpus in a timely fashion.STATEMENT OF FACTS 1) Relator bias convicted of DUI in Respondent's court on June 13th, 201<f. See Cause No. 427052, The State v. Ellas, Tuelfth County Court of Laui for Bexar County, Texas. 2) On July 9th, 2014, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles revoked Relator's parole for an unrelated case as a result of said Dlill conviction. See State v. Elias, Cause No. 970D11232, 243rd Judicial District Court of El Paso County, Texas, final judgment, April 18, 2001; Violation Report No. 10775503. 3) Relator filed a direct appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals. See Cause No. 04-14-00498-CR. Relator's conviction uias affirmed on June 3, 2015. 4) Relator filed a Petition for Discretionary Revieu uiith the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court issued an order refusing discretionary revieui on February 10, 2016. See Elias v. State, PD-0B20-15. 5) Relator submitted his Application for lilrit of Habeas Corpus uiithithe Bexar County Clerk on May 16th, 2017. See Appendix, Exhibit 1. 6) Relator submitted a letter of inquiry certified mail, return receipt requested on July 31, 2017, to Respondent inquiring into the status of his application for birit of habeas corpus. See Appendix, Exhibit 2. 7) To date. Respondent has not set a date for a hearing on said application, nor responded to Relator's letter of inquiry.ARGUMENT

RELATOR HAS UIOLATED ARTICLE 11.10 AND 11.11



### "OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Respondent is in violation of Article 11.10 of the TCCP for failing to appoint a time to examine Relator's cause. TCCP, Article 11.10 states:
"liJhen motion has been made to a judge under the circumstances set forth in the preceding Articles, he shall appoint a time when he uill examine the cause of the applicant, and issue the urit returnable at that time, in the county uhere the offense is charged in the indictment or information to have been committed. He shall also specify some place in the county uhere he uill hear the motion."
It has been over one hundred and fifty days since the application uas initially filed uith no reply from Respondent. This prolonged delay compounds hardships upon Relator and further frustrates the relief sought through habeas corpus undermining its value as a safeguard against constitutional infringements. Relator is confined as a result of a parole revocation stemming from a Class B misdemeanor. Additionally, Article 11.11 of the TCCP states:
"The time so appointed shall be the earliest day uhich the judge can devote to hearing the cause of the applicant."
A time has not been appointed nor a hearing devoted to the cause of the Respondent,

### •n July 31, 2017, Respondent uas served a letter of inquiry requesting a status update regarding Relator's application for uirit of habeas corpus. See 

### Appendix, Exhibit 2. To date, no response has been filed with Relator regarding his application for writ of habeas corpus. Ironically, one of the grounds for relief is a violation of Relator's right to a speedy trial. Here, again. Respondent fails to take decisive action uihen appropriate or ordered by statute. Relator languishes in a prison cell needlessly due to this inaction.

PRAYER 

### lilherefore, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Relator, Benjamin Elias, pro se, respectfully requests the Court order Respondent to conduct said hearing compliant uith statute or that the relief sought in Relator's Application 

### for Idrit of Habeas Corpus be granted by this honorable Court. Respectfully, 

### Benjdffiin Elias, pro se TDCJ-ID No. 819778 O.B. Ellis Unit 1697 FM 980 Huntsville, Texas '?73k2.CERTIFICATION 

### I, Benjamin Ellas, Relator, pro se, hereby certify that I have revieuied the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record to the best of my knouiledge. My name is Benjamin Elias, my date of birth is April 3Dth, 1979, and my inmate identifying number is 819778. I am presently incarcerated in the G.B. Ellis Unit in hialker County, Huntsville, Texas 77343. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this the 31st day October 2017.
Benjamin Elias, pro se.APPENDIX

EXHIBIT 1 Relatar's Qriginal lilrit of Habeas Carpus uith Certified Mail Card and Return Receipt.

EXHIBIT 2 

### Letter of Inquiry to Respondent with Certified Mail Card and Return Receipt,

# 1 ^

EXHIBIT 1U5PSnWCKING#

UnitedStates PostalService ' Sender: Pleaseprintyourname,address, and2IP+4®in thisbox* 

## tlifti V ' W-IC ' 

## It'll 

# lUsv.ilejMU 17:^^3

7'343~



### ....cCrtTIONONDEt-IVEBVA Signatu'® 

# Ix t: . / Y—-

1 h! DAg^^t

...halOW- U 

# •completeitems1.2,and3^^ • Printyour"a'"®®^thecardtoyou. sothat«ecan tna-lp-ece. 

## -TWAdd^iSedto: 

# lui-ntE ST STfill 

# wwioTExA. ter====|&H&

....iiiiiitiillUlllW °BSlv«v 

# "1"022A996306948253^__J|gg^^^p,^^^ S^-SST

— r:„ ..._nnn-90Wft •;.;r.Tti?:^.c! rti ' ft'>5"t';!5l'Dfil'.'e'V fcae • r ^'?r.*:' r^ftrj =|S3j''ia~; T-''J :'_s;:i-ji' i Fit-- , S
•iSS' 2-V VJ 'piV'

C-y S:,r-. ZIP-", s/]M li'ioj Certified Mali Provides: • A mailing receipt • A uiiiciue idenlilier for your mailpiece • A record o! delivery kepi by tne Posiai Service lor two years Imporlanf Reminders: • Cerlilred Moil may ONLV be combined wilb Firsl-Class Mail-; or Prioniy Mailij • Cemtiad Mail is nofavailable for any class ol international mait • MO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED wrlli Certi'ifid Mail For valuables, p'ease consider Insuiea or Regis'erefl Mail • For an add-tiorral lee. a Reurn Receipt may be reguesred lo provide proof oi delivery. To obtain Retuirr Peceipi service, please complete andaifaC'a Reiurrr Receipt IPS Foim 3Si t} lo the artic'e and add applicable postage tocover the foe Endorse maiip-ece "Return Receipt Renuesied" Toreceivea tee v.-aivet tor

a duplicate teiyn recamt, a USPSo postmarkon your Cenilied Mail receipt is

reguiied • For an ardOitiortal fee. delivetv may be restricted lo itie adOtessee or adurcssee s auibortjea agent. Advise the clerkor mark the mniipiece with tfie endorsement ••ResfrcledOefiver-/'. • Ifa postrnark cn the Certified Ma-I teooipi i5 desired. Please prescnr fhs arti cle at the post ollice forDostmaiking. Il ;i posimark an the Certilieo Mail receipt ip not needed, detach and aiii' label wiih postage and mail. IMPORTANT: Save lltis receipt and (iiesenl il when making an Inquiry. l>-'i r.-;iii .Ili.to. A-JJI.L! 20-}-i ('rincr5v) OS'J 7SJil-:V.y'i;i.<ia-f'

# 2 704 aLilKBsi^ca CauseNo.:Nt^^eT'^^^ed ^DITJIAYlb P4'2b Exparts § THE COUNTY COURT OF LAU § 

### Banjarain Ellas § OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS ^ § 

## § IZ"""" 3UDICIALDISTRICT

APPLICATION FOR liiRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

### COMES NOW, Banjarain Ellas, [hereinafter referred to as Applicant] pro ae, in the above-captionad cause and pursuant to Article 11.09 of the Taxas Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 5, Section 8 of the Texaa Constitution mould show the Court the folloming:
Procedural History I. 

### Applicant mas charged by information mith driving mh <icatad, 

### alleged to have bean committed in Bexar County, Texas on or n u. "V-y 2Ath, 2013. Gee Clerk's Record [CR] B-9. Applicant plead not guilty, and a jury found 

### himguilty of the charged offense. State v. Ellaa, Cause No. A27ijj2 (I2.th Cty 

## Ct., Bexar Cty., Tex. Juna 13, 201A); see 3Reporter's Record [RR] 5; 5RR A1 and CR 49. The trial court assessed puniahmont of six months' confinement in 

### jail, a $2,000 fine and court coats of $49?.DO, See CR 49. Applicant filed a notics of appsal.

-1-II. Applicant filed an appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Criminal Appeals for Texas. See Eliaa v. State, Cause Mo. Ci-/4-OOV9B-CR. Applicant's conviction was affirmed on 3une 3, 2ni5. Subsequantly, a Petition for Discretionary Review was filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ellas V. State, PD-082n-1S. The Court issued an order refusing discretionary review February 10, 2016.

Juraldlctlon III. 

### Applicopt see''. :ief under this writ in accordance with Article 5, Section 8, of the Texas Constitution and Article 11.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 5, Section B, of the Texas Constitution provides the following: 

### "District Court jurisdiction consists of exclusive, appellate and original jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings and remadies, except in cases where exclusive, appellate, or original jurisdiction may be conferred by the Constitution to issue writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction. 

### The District Court shall have appellate jurisdiction and general supervisory control over the County Commissioner's Court, with such 

### exceptions and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law." (Emphasis added). Similarly, Article 11.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides in part that:
"If a person is confined on a charge of misdemeanor, he may apply to the 

### county judge of the county in which the misdemeanor is charged to have -2-been cemmitted, or if there be no county judge in said county, than to 

### the county judge uhose residence ia nearest to the courthouse of the county in ujhich the applicant is held in custody."

IV. 

### Applicant is unlawfully restrained of his liberty as a collateral consequence of the above-referenced misdemeanor charge, thus making §11.09 of the TCCP 

## applicable to his case. SeeState v. Callazo, 264 5.LI.3d 121 (App. 1 Dist. 2007), rehearing overruled, petition stricken 200(1 UL 2223903, petition for discretionary revieuj refused. At the time of said charge. Applicant was on parole for an rd 

### unrelated charge. Sea State v. Ellas, Cause ^]o. 970D11232, 243 Judicial District Court of El Peso County, Texas, final judgment April 12, 2001. As a 

### collateral consequence of his arrest for this misdemeanor charge, his parole was revoked. He is currently confined to'.the Texas Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division due to this parole revocation. Argument and Authority V. Inaffective Aaeietance of Counsel 

### Applicant's first assertion for relief is ineffective assistance of counsel 

### pursuant to the Sixth andFourteenth Amandmanta of the United States Conatitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Conatitutton. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, an applicant must show that 

### defense counsel's assistance "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" 

### and thereby prejudiced applicant's defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 66H, 687-BB (1984); accord Thompson v. State, 9 5.''i.3d GOB, 21? (Tex.Crim.App. -3-

### 1999). To make this showing, tha applicant must prov€ that dafense counsel's 

### parformanca uas (1) daficiant, and (2) that tha deficient performance prejudiced the applicant, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 607; Thompson, 9 S.l)).3d at 012. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel "must be firmly founded in the 

### record" and the claim is rsvieued against "a strong prosumption that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." 

### Thompson, 9 5.lJ.3d at fl13. To do so, tha record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness." Id. 

### Toestablish prejudice, the applicant mu3(- .show that there is a reasonable 

### probability {Kat hut for defense counsel's unprofessional error, the outcome of the trial woulri i.vs been different. Hernandez u. State, 726 S.bJ.2d 53, 55 (Tex. 

### Grim. App. 19fi6)(9U 7Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). Areasonijble probability in this context, ms- bat there is sufficient probability "to undermine confidence in th-i outcome" of the trial. Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 

### 694). Applicant presents three areas where trial counsel uas ineffective. Trial counsel was invited to respond to each allegation. See Exhibit A.
A. Fai.lurs to conduct an indapendent investigation. 

### Applicant's trial counsal, Mr. Antonio Simenez III, failed to conduct an 

### adequate pretrial investigation, thus failing to subject the proaecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing, "It is fundamental that an attorney must have a firm command of the facts of the case as well as the law before he can 

### render rsaaonably effective asaistance of counsel...A natural consequence of this notion is that counsel also has a rnaponaiLility to seek out and interview -4-

### potential uitnesses and failure to do sc is to be ineffective, if not incompetent,
r 

### uihere the result is that any viable defense available to the accused is not advanced." Exparta Lilly, 656 S.U.2d L9n, L93; 1903 Tex.Crim.App.LEXIS 1155; see also Comptonv. State, 202 S.lil.3d 416, 419 (Tex.App.—Tyler 2Q06). Specifically, counsel failed to conduct an investigation in order to subject the prosecution's 

### case to meaningful adversarial testing. When the foundation ofthe prosecution's case is based upon circumstantial evidence, rebuttal evidence and exposing 

### discrepancies in "cover officer's" testimony are paramount to staging any viable defense. Mr, Jimenez's ineffectiveness falls into three broad categories; failure 

### to subject circumstantial evidence to meaningful cross-examination, failure to introduce evidence and providing erroneous legal advice. 

### In order to secure a conviction for driving uhile intoxicated, the prosecution 

### must prove six elements of the charge: (1) a parson; (2) is intoxicated; (3) at the time of; (4) opsrating; (S) a motor vehicle; (6) in a public place. Bee UTCA, 

### Penal Code &49.D4(8); Chaloupka v. State, 20 S.IJ.3d 172, pet. for discretionary reviauj refused (Tex.App.—Waco 1999). Instejid of establishing each element of the charge, the prosecution has utilized circumstantial evidence and shoddy 

### testimony to supoort its cuoe. Mindful that circumstantial evidence can be used to support a conviction, it is not carte blanche to forego empirical evidence or tha lack thereof. See Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.U.3d 460 (necessitating a 

### temporal link hetueen the time of the accident andarrival ofthe officers at the scene). Beyondcircumstantial evidence, the prosecution never established 

### Applicant exercised control over or operated the motor vehicle. The prosecution, instead, utilizes suspect testimony upon which to base its case-in-chief.

-5-

### Specifically, officers guesstimate the time of the accident. Officer Floras, one of the last officers to arrive at the scene submitted the crash raport and presented the following testimony upon cross-examination by Mr. Oimenez: 

### Q: (By Mr. Oimenez) Officer, do you know when the aec-idant actually occurred? A: As far as like, the exact time? Q: Time sequence. 

### A; The time I put on my report was 3:32, so I will probably say you'<i

— probably a few minutes before that— Q: All right. A: 3:30.
See 3 RR 35. Officer Floras was unsure of the time of the accident as he did not witness it occur. 

### Maxt, Officer Gary Mel, the first officer on the scene testifies to not having seen that accident occur either. Upon examination bv iirate prosecutor Matthew Ludowig, Hr. Nel stated the following: Q: Okay. Now, this is important. Now. Officer Mel, did you physically see the defendant driving his vehicle? A: No, I did not.
See 3 RR 45-45. Officer Mel did not witness the accident nor could he provide an accurate time outsids of spaculation. Speculation which "Conveniently"' supports the prosecution's alleged sequence of events.

-6-A review of "Calls for Service" to the San Antonio Police Department that night point a different picturs. See Exhibit S. Thi accident uias first reported at 2:u?am—over an hour before officers "h-ppaned to rtll up." 

### The odds of a San Antonio police officer coinoidentally "rolling up" on the scene of an accident immediately after it happened are highly improbable. In fact, ths sequence of events praposad by the prosecution is inaccurate. Their case posits just enough fabricated circumstantial links to string together a conviction. The sheer area patrolled by a single officer each night belies this convenient coincidence. Common sense asida the "Calls for Servica" that night contradict the clsim made by Cfficer Nel. Had an independent investigation been conducted by counsel for the defense, the "["=11:5 fcr SGrvice" rtjcord would have been discovered bsforu trial snd 

### available as rebuttal nvidence casting a formidable shadowUpon the officer's credibility and the prosecution's case. Instead, Mr. 3imenez went into trial ill-prepared to defend or defeat the prosecution's argument for circumstantial evidence. Each subsequent ground is effected to some degree by prstrial preparation or lack thoreof. 

### The third axampls regarding erroneous legal advice wji: ?expounded upon in subsection C.
B. Failure to pursue pretrial motions. Applicant was denied the effactiva assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to pursue a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence resulting from his unlawful arrest. See CR 30-33. Applicant's DWI arrest was a direct result of his conversation with officers before the reading of his Miranda rights. Additionally, officer's suspicion that Applicant was intoxicated was in error -7-due to the circumstances surrounding the scene of the crash. Thuc, the intoxylizer results should also be excluded from the record. To show that counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue the motion to suppress evidence, Applicant must prove that tha trial court uiould have granted 

## the motion. Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d ?5t, 957 (Tex.Crim.App. 199S); ^^e Roberaon v. Stato, 852 S.l!.2d 590, 510-12 (Tex.Orim.App. 1993)(unlesn there is n sho'ijing that a pretrial motion had merit and that a ruling on tha motion would have changed the outcome of the case, counsel will not be ineffective for failing to assert the motion). In other words, Appellant mdet defeat the presumption of proper police conduct. Jackaon, 973 S.li.pd at 957. As will be shown, affective counsel would h '.-. .'efeated that presumption by showing that tha arrest based 

### on field sobriaty at the scene of the accident was unrcasohabla and made

•3 a result of tha ' L-or's testimony interpreting shock and confusion as evidence of intoxication. The reviewing court may consider only the information actually known by or available to the officer at the inception of the atop. State v. Duran, 355 S.ld.3d 563, 569 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013). Information that the officer acquired or noticed after a detention or arrest cannot be considered.-id. (citing Amorea V. State, 816 S.l)].2d if07, 'tis (Tex.Crim.App. 1991)("In reviewing a warrantless arrest to determine the existence of probable cause, we look to the facts known to the officers at the time of arrest; subsequently discovered facts or lateracquired knowledge, like the fruits of a search, cannot retrospectively serve 

### to bolster probable cause at the time of arrest.")). This is because "[a] determination is either good or bad at the moment it starts." Duran, at 569. Thus, the onboard, camera footage and intoxylizer results should not be considared. -8-Furth'srmars, th=: admission of the ooboard, camera footaga undermines Applicant's Fifth Amendment right against aelf-incrimination. He uas not Mirandirud until after arrest and placemant'ln handcuffs. 4 RR 12. Any statamants prior to tha reading of the Miranda rights ara not admissible. Mr. Jimenez confuses the sequence of events and dascribas this dialogue as voiunxarv/. 4 RR 4r. This was noc tha case, though, and Applicant uss not admanishad of his rights to have voluntarily uaived them. By officer's testimony, their main 

### purpose that night uastolook for "evidence of intoxication." 4 (30. Consequently, the arresting officers' overriding objective uculd cause themto compromise 

### legal safeguards. As a secondary safeguard, counsel for defense had opportunities to protest the:- vljlations, but failed tc do so. 

### Apratrial rj . to suppress is a specialized objection to the admissibility of tha design^jtad c •. -^ice which may be, but is not required to be resolved 

### prior to trial. Tax. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 20.01 (Msst .?UOn)j Black v. State, 352 S.!J.3d £26, 633 (Tex.Crim.App. 2ni2): Gutierrez v. State, 327 S.iJ.3d 257, 261 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 201G, no pet.). The trial court's pretrial ruling on such a motion to suppress is interlocutory and equally subject to reconsideration and revision during trial as any other ruling on the admissibility of evidencQ under Rule 104 of the Texae Rules of Evidence. Tax.R.Evid. 104; 

### Black, 362 5.LI.3d at £33 (noting court may revisit a ruling under Rule 104 at 

### its discretion, at any time, during the course of tha trial); Gutierrez, 327 S.L).3d at 251. Thus, dafenee counsel could have urged his motion to suppress during trial, but no mention occurred in the recoro regarding it. It appears counsel uas litigating the circumstances surrounding Applicant's arrest, but did not give the trial court a vehicle to rule on this evidence. "There is no -9-

### logical reason or rosaonabla strstogy rot counsel's failure to object" to cuc"tioo2ble evidence that was the basis for the prosecution'e case. See Manefisld v. State, ?G3 S.lji.3d GSI (Tex.r::iir.,S; ;. TGI?). To establish his inaffactive assistance claim, Coplicsnt must show that 

### the triel court .jio'jld have granted a pretrial motion to suporass. Jackson, 973 S.'j!.2a at ;57. usoaust hu ha:, ahouu thnt the -irrnat rrs -dthout probobls cause, 

### based on the officer's subjective belief that Applicant's behavior was s result of intoxication when the officer admittod that those same behaviors were consistent 

### with non-intoxiceted behavior. Applicant ha? categorically defeated the presumption 

### of proper police conduct rsnd shown that e pretrial motion to suppress had 

### merit. Id. Moreover, a ruling on that mobion 'uould have changed the outcome of the case. This was a prrrecutinn for D'H; s31 of the tsstimony nrd evidence used to establish the intoxicatinn element of the offense uno a direct product •f the initial arrest. Uithout evidance obtained from the arrest, the Stcte would not have secured its conviction. 

### Certainly, the outcoms of the trial would have been different had trial counsel pursued the pretriel motion to suppress evidence. ' bocauss the 

### pretrial rnotian wouldhcvc dstcrriined the outcnme ofthe jii Applicant's favor, there can be no strategic roasona for failing to pur;.:. 

## A^iditionally, trial counsel failed'to pursue aMotion for t.pesdy TrjaL. See Section No. UII. 

## C. Failure to command facts ofcaaa of J'P/'fCprjdtfi-'y advise client.
In a vain related to ground A, trial counsel failed to command facts 

### relevant to his client's case or advise him appropriately. More specifically, -10-

### the Friday before trial, Mr. Jimenez informed Applicant that the State made an 

### offer for time served in exchange for a plea of guilty in person at the Dexar County Adult Detention Center. Ha further recommsnded that Applicant accept the plea agreement since ha could be sentenced to upuards of two years' 

### confinement. Counsel's advice was a flagrant misreprssentation of applicable, 

### statutory Ism, Ths above-reteranced class Bmisdemeanorcarries a statutory, maximum sentence of" one-hundred and eighty (1BD) oays' confinement in tha 

### county jail. See Vernon's Texae Penal Code §§A-9.QA-(b) and 12.22(2). "Counsel's representation mas beiou en objective standard of reasonableness. There is no evidence of hie consulting the statute." sea Ex parts Battle, 817 H.bl.Sd 81, 8'^. Said advicn r fleets a failure of trial counsel to prepare for trial and command a firm g-"- "the facts of the case as uell as ths law. See Diaz v. State, 905 j 307 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1995). Pecuniary interests may have influenced Mr. Jimenez's judgmsnt. 

### Initially, Mr. Jimenez mas paid a tyo-thousand five hundred (2,500) dollar retainer fee with a verbal agreement for further payment dependant upon the course of the case. Unfortunately, Applicant mas arrested the folloiiiing day and unable tci make further payments. Mr. Jimenez uas asked by Applicant to 

### uithdr^wfrom his case if payment, or lack thereof, created conflict. Trial counsel did not mithdraui and contacted Applicant's elderly parents requesting 

### payment. Mr. Jimenez mas not compenHuted beyond ths initial retainer fee for his sarvicBs. Thus, decisions not to prepare, nor appropriately advise his 

### client mas not a "'strategic' decision, it mas an economic one." See Ex parte 

### Brigge, 137 fi.W.Jd A5H, HG7(Tex.Crj.m.App. 2005). Mr. Jlmsnaz manted to avoid a trial for mhich ha mould not taa compensated. He has gone to ths extent of misrepresBnting statutory law to do so. -11-

### D. Failure to advocate on Applicant's behalf undermining the adversarial prucese.
Trial counssl'a acLions bsfors, during ancj aftar trini roflsct an abandonment of the adversarial procass canatitutincj a denial uf due prticeus. "L'han one nida i;i unuililnt) ir Ulil-keiv to advocacc cm hs.half of hie client 

### thsrs i& no reason to expect the other side to bs willing to rariucs uhatever adversarial advantage it may already have. Hencs uithout effort on the part 

### of the appellant's attorney to sack pcssihle flows in the State's case, the 

### prosecutor uould not be oersueded to seek less than the asking pries, which in most Cases exceeds t!ia actual value of the cauu." ciec Mitchell v. State, 762 

### '"16, 'jZh (Tex.Apt'.—'an Antonio 1969). l>o dencnstrntao by ouhsucction 6, trial counsel failed to pursue several pretrial motions that poasossod the putantial to change tije outcoms of ths trial. The CSSQ against Applicant consistod of four witnesses for the prosecution versus ahsDlutely none for the 

### dafenau. The prosecution uubniittcjd three exhibits into the record iiiithoiit a 

### single objection from counsel for the derense. See ARR and7v. 

## Two specific instance?reflect abnndonment of duty -.li. One, during nis testimony, Officer Mel interjected the tlamaging charactemlion that 

## Applicant had a very arrogant stance abcct himoslf, to which iir. Dimsnez did not object, 3 RR 57. The interjection of this subjective speculation cast a 

## negative lightupon Applicant's character before the jury. Defense counsel allowed thw prosecution, through its witnesses, to lanei Applicant creating a 

## backdropfor framing the jury's attitude towards this case. Once emocionally charged connotations are attached to the proceedings, legal standards are -12-replacsd by s;iiotj.an£il onsa. Tha C3n'te>;t uf ths trial is shiftad frDm oriB based 

### apan the lau ta ana based upan stations. MeedlSoS to say, aubjsctive charactsrizations mur.t be restrained to cantext and not ailowad to parmsats the 

### trial procsedintjs uhich happened in this case. Sacandly, nfficsr Bandela testifiad that Applicant was not Mira.idizsd until r.rz-t- lie was planed in ir^ndn'.iffs and cndar vvrt-Gt. VRR 12, Ti'Jc, any 

### vidsn ruafcaga or dialogue UAth officer's bnfore th'.:t point (usiiicn is tn..' 

### r.iEjority ofthe i/idsu)is inadmissible before the jury. This footage in the singl'2 most damaging evidance introducad liy tha prosacution. Its admission constitutes a violation of Applicant's Fifth Amendment rignt against salrincriiiiination. 

### Instead of ting aupprasaion, fir. dinanez abfuscates the time tha Miranda rights wert - ;:i. Despite, testimony stating that the Miranda righti-. utru rand after thn colloquy bntujean Applicant and officoro, Mr. Jimenez 

### argiias for its incorporation into the recnrr) aa a "Volj.ntary" admission. ^ RR In a striking role revarsal, defense counsel ceases to be an advocate for 

### the defense and joins forces with the prosecution. Thsrs cannot possibly be any strategic reason for couns.nl's action. 

### [•lith no adversarial challenge by defanae, thore is no rBSSonable 

### Expetation for the prosecution to check itsslf. In the procaas, evidence to 

### the contrary is glossed over and unCDnstitutional methods irnplementiedto secure s conviction. "If counnsl fails to subject the prosecution's caso to meaningful adversarial testing, than there has been a denial of Sixth Amendment rights 

### that makes the adversary process itself prsBumptively unreliablK." SeeMitchell, n. 1 at 32't (quoting United States u* Cronic, kftG U.S. at 652, S.Ct. at -13-2407). Thun, the tricl rifiultt art not raliabie duo to a iirsak ciauin in tha advnrsf.rial procssa.
UI. Diaproportionatf! puniahmsnt. "ppX:.aant has hn:!."\ to orue]. and unusiioj. p-iniDhmant in the 

### far-n of dsliborate indiffsrancs and dispraportionata puniahmant undar tha Eighth and Fourteenth AtnendmentB to tha United Ststfcil Constitution. Specifically, pretrial detention for three huncrr.d ani eljhty (300) days as a result of a class 3 misdemeanor aualting trial constitutes punishment disproportionate to the statutcrily, mandated myximum punishment. Oee Texas Penal Code §§49.Q4{b) 

### and 1?.?.2{2)(punishment fui' drivin'; •.ihil;': i.nt3xiOGtnrl, nla?. j nlsdrmaanci, sot at confinsiiiunt in tnn county jail not to exceed one nundrari and Eighty days). Applicant was chargad uith the class 3 iiiisdestnnanor, driving uhile 

### intoxicated on May 24th, 2012. That day, ho uas released on Pond. On May 2;5th, he uias arrested on a pra-rcuocation uarrant issued ny the Texas Deparliiiant uf Crrminai Ousticn—Pardons and Paroles Division [Parole Div .un]. 3aj.d warrant 

### preclj.lad hand. As a result, Applicant jould rernain incar ' until the 

### resolution </f .the driving uihile intcxicatsd charge. He contac.Scott Roberts raquosting a trial since the Parole Division rafusad to lift tha 

### pra-ravncatiuii warrant until his cast* tj-ns ndindicated. Alternativaly. Applicant contacted the Parole Division requsating the warrant be lifted sines tha Court iijoul:! not nchadiile hi« trial for another £-Jvr.':al nonth-j. K!eirher the tx'ral 

### judge, nor the Parola Division provided Applicant with any rexi«r.

-14.

### The Eighth Amendmsnt'a proacription against "cruel andunusual" 

## punishment includes dispropartionats punishment. Punishment for aclass B misdemeanor is explicitly defined as a period of confinement in the county 

## jail "nottoexceed one-hundred and eighty (130) days."-id. Applicant served themaximumstatutorypunishmenttuice over, plustwenty days..He was confined for three hundred and eighty (380) days BEFORE adjudication ofthis case. This is clearly anabrogation ofhis EighthAmendment rights. 

# "Whenfaced withsuchacategoricalchallenge, thejudiciary, indetermining 

# whetherthepunishmentat. issueis grosslydisproportionate totheoffense, must consider; (1) whethertherais anationalconsensus againstimposingthe 

# punishmentfortheoffense; (2) themoralculpabilityoftheoffender'sat issuein light of theircrimes and characteristics; (3) theseverityofthe 

# punishment; and(A)whetherthepunishmentserveslegitimatepenologicalgoals." MsadouxV. State, 325S.l>J.3d189, 19A (Tex.Grim.App. 2010). Thebestevidence ofanationalconsensuswithrespecttotheappropriatenessofaparticular 

# punishmentforaparticularoffenseisthelegislationenactedbythenation's legislature.-id. Inthisspecificinstance, legislationsettheappropriate 

# punishmentatatermofconfinementinthecountyjail,nottoexceedonehundred andeighty days," BeeTex. Pen. Code §12.22(2).
UXI. Violation of dua process. 

# Applicant'sdueprocessrightsuerscontravenedbypunishmentpriorto trial. "Actetainaemaynotbepunishedpriortoanadjudicationofguiltin 

# accordancewithdueprocessoflaw."Ballv.bJolfiah,99S.Ct. 1361,1396(197,). -15-

### Applicant petitioned the Parole Division and Court requesting the pre-revocation warrant be lifted or the misdemeanor adjudicatfid, respectively. Neither party provided Applicant with relief. This inaction serves as a warning to others who may consider exercising fundamental constitutional rights to proceed with caution. "The inevitable effect of any such provision is, of course, to discourage assertion of the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and to deter exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial. If the provision had no 

### other purpose or effect than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it would be patently 

### unconstitutional." Gregg v.Georgia, i»2fi U.S. 15.1, 193, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2935 (1976) Applicant exercised hie Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and has been penalized for doing so. "A person on parole for one crime who is arrestad for a second crime cannot be punished for the commission of the second crime until he is 

### found guilty of the commission ofthe second crime." Hamilton v, Lynns, 7A F.3d 99, 104. The extended imposition of a blue warrant precluding bond has 

### unequivocQbly punished and discouraged the exercise of fundamental rights without legitimate counterbalancing penological goals, punishtfiQ Applicant PRIOR to trial. There is no way around the injury to Applicant due to disregard for constitutional tenets.


### UIII. Spaedy trial violation. 

### Applicant has been denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a 

### speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as extended -16-

### to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the criminally accused the right to a speedy trial. See State v. Rangel, 980 S.U.Zd SAO, 943 

### (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1990). Similarly, the Texas Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. Tax.Const.art. I, §10."-id. Applicant spent fourteen (14) months' in the Bexar County Adult Detention Center before his misdemeanor trial. Paradoxically, the misdemeanor pending against him carried a maximum, statutory punishment of six (fa) months' confinement in the county jail. See 

### Settrom Uand UI; see also Texas Penal Code §§49.D4(b) and 12.22(2). The reviewing court must balance four factors when analyzing the grant or denial of a speedy trial claim. "The factors are: (1) length of the delay; 

### (2) reason for the delay; (3) assertion of the right; and (4) prejudice to the accused." Stock v. State, 214 S.lil.3d 761, 764 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007)(quoting Barker v. Uingo, 4Q7 U.S. 514, 53D, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed,2d 101 (1972)). In this casa, the delay was fourteen (14) months. Applicant understood the delay to be due to a crowded docket, in part. "Upon a finding that a 

### presumptively prejudicial delay has occurred, the State bears the initial burden of justifying the delay." Rangel, at 843. The primary burden is on the State and the trial courts to ensure that defendants are afforded their right 

### to a speedy trial. See CR 1D-12, Ground I or Section U. Counsel for defense failed to pursue these motions. The final factor, or prejudice, is inherent 

### with continued pretrial detention. All four factors are met by Applicant's causa for relief. Relief under this ground calls for reversal of the above referenced cause and dismissal with prejudice. See Stock; see also State v. 

### Guerrero, 110 S.W.3d 155 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2003).

-17-Prayer Uherafore, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant reapectfully prays that this 

### hcnorabia Court set asids the final judgment and sentence in the abovB-referencBd cause and order the conviction for Cause No. kZlZ\52 void and null. Applicant 

### also prays for any other relief that this Court defints equitable and necessary. Respectfully, 

# C Beni^l Benj^in Elias TDCI-ID No. 819778 Q.B.Ellis Unit 1697 FH 9BQ Huntsville, Texas 773A.3.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

## I, Benjamin Elias, Applicant, pro ae, herebycertify that atrue and correct COPY o"'' "the foregoing Applicant's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, has been foruarded to the District Attorney of Bexar County, Criminal Justice 

## Center, 101 U. Nueva, San Antonio, Texas 73207 via UnitedStates Postal Service, first-class mail, postage prepaid. 

## Executed onthis the IQtKday ofHay 2D17.
Benjamin Elias, pro3b

—1B—APPENDIX

1) EXHIBIT A 

### Letter dated April 28, 2D17 to Mr. Oimanez for adaptive admissions (3 pages)

2) EXHIBIT B 

### Calls for Service to the San Antonio Police Department for May ZA-th, 2013 (3 pages)

-19-exhibit a

-2P-April 28. 2017 Mr. Antonio 3imenez III Attorney and Counselor at Law 2^k Didyar, fruibe 315 San Antonio, Texas 7B2D4 State liar fio. 1D566Pnn.
RE: T!ia S"l.3t" Tny??" v. tlia.-; Crtnoa lla, ?r27C5l-.'; iGth County Court of Law, ijfiv.ar County, Tsxaa.

DEAK mi:. CIMENEZ:
Moiio. riie reason for tnis letter is to foriflslly invite you to respond to claims aoaitad in a writ uf haaoiis corous, please take the time to rsvieu the foliowiny latt.-ir Oiiu reapond appropriately, 

### (.In March 2Gth, DeujaF.in Eiias retained your prafassionial assistance 

### in the ohovs styled cause anc parole prooaQdings uith the poymsrit of a tuentyfivD hUruired {ZjSiiiJ) 'Jollar rfitarricr fee. hU liacl a cl.iss '? misdar.ieanor tor 

### driving uni.!..j int.oxit:nt;ii;l (uliii) crsrya pending and parola issues for .an unreierad uhgr^i::. 

### f.in March f.jtl'i, ilr. cliaa wiaa arrostar, on a iire-revucation warrant and C(3nfini;:J to the Baxar Ceurjty A.duJ.t Detention [.enter where ha wouldreMu.in until the adjudication of this casa. Un juns lA-th-13th, 2u1A, a jury trial wo:- 

## coniiuctae. Tiiu jury loundhi"; c-u-lny nf uKo charge tnd the judge ^epr.cinceci him to six nonths' confinaiuBnt and a tuo-thuuaand (2,CUD) dollar fine, jurigment aatisfieo. 

### Direct appeal was Made to the Fourth uciuri ar .nppaois vor Faxas. fhe eele groundfor reliefwas ineffectivs assistance of counae.!. Due to an "undardevelopsd record," the appellate court affirmed the trlBl c.iurt'fi rleclsion. ApatiLion Fa.r -1-

### discretionary revisij ujas aubnaoLiinni-Jy filec with thtj Court of Criminal Appaals and refused. Noui, a urit of habeas carpus has been prepared and is ready for aubmissinn. The majority of the grounds listed in that writ refer to your 

### pgrfornisr.cs before, and at trial. Please rsvieu the folloiiiing questions and raspcin:; t-n in turn:
1 . t'Jhat t-jris yo'.ir r'-oson for rot C'^niluciing on inbepandent investigation of the prosecutior s case? 2. Hh~t uan vnur rnason for net withurawiny ['rom this case uihen asked to do 80 by your client due to inattention? 3. Ii'hst ir VDi£ rr:ag'.;n fnr iufusiny "to surrsndor Mr. Elies' client file? 

### 4. liinat was your reason for filing a pre-trial motion tc suopress and not obtaininn, a rulinr, upon 5.I.? 

### 5. tihaa was your strategy in having your client ait in the county jail for nvar s year on a charge that uerri?"', 3 maximum punishment of six months? 

### 6. Iilhat uiSo your reason for not atlvucah.'.ng a ir.oTian far speedy Uciai? 

### 7. What was your reason for nor having command of the statutes qnverning ycur r.-Uerit's cnro? 

### 3. What was your reason for advising Mi'. Elias that he could be sentenced for upuiards of two years' cmfinentent for a class Bmisdemaanar when, 

### by statute, the maximum punishment is six months' confinement? 9. What UBS your ntrntagy in not abjrv.tinij r.i •-ntnps5?'3 ns'ssti've chsracterization of your client? 

### 10. What Mas 'your "tratagy uilien 'jrouini: in i'L'jDi' of tne inciusinri of dash camera videofootage instead of against it? -2-

# 11. WhatUBSyourstrategyitinotpi>?P«ri.nnfortrialnor subjecting the prcsscution'scase to apprupriatt: advsraarxai ujo iiig 

# Mr. youarenotobligatetitoveshu:;Jt. .-usla.t.::. Ivy^-uchoosenot 

# tore.-one, -tu.iUbepresunetithatyouhaunoreasonurtrialetretegyfoi ennagingin thi? actitin:; rin.-ii-jrj.i'cij .•rv.'v-• 

## Further, tria -"lalulao 

# Ilanaa,Ccrp..pursuanttoTaxaaRulaanfEvldanca.BM (e)(2)C®). •1 J..— F—nin i-hr' O-^+e nf triLf iliailiny, out /Oli a.'.a 

### he subrr.itted in sevar cpl^nHuv ^r.yir rrnn i,p
- .. 

## ualcomsd to respond ercer this time ifneed ma. 

# Thnnv/onir: fnryont '.nt',con-siter^tion..ifthu-^neU^r.
r.'-i.-'e';tfully, 

## c: 

## BBn^amin Elias TncC?-!?* '<0. bl:''V73 O.B. Ellis Unit FM 931} 

### Huntsvills, Texas llZWi,
nPHTlFICATE OF SERV/ICE 

# I,BBnlamlnEllas,herabycattlfvthatatruaandcarractcopyofthaahnva 

# raquastfaradcptlyaadaiaslonahasbaanaubmittadtnhr.Antonio31manazHI. B1ADpyar.duita315.BanAntonio.Ta«a,7BBGAylaUnltadStataaPostalSaryioa. firstoiasaaall.oartiflad,raturn-reoaiptrapuastadonthisthaIBthdayof April2B17.ReturnRocelptRaquestadNo.701a17100000AOfiO Benj'ftmin Elias -3-EXHIBIT B(http://www.sananlonlo.90v1'Home.aspx) 

# C

YOimGOVEgEMT)(G^UQHiljECTED^ ;ANANTONIOPOLICEDEPARTMENT o.GovHomo(/) > SAPD(hllp/Avww.$ananlonio.gov/SAPD.aspx)> Calls (orService(hllp-/Avww.Bonanlonio.gov;SAPO'Call8.osp*) 

## :ALLSFORSERVICE ExportToPDF (ExportToExcel| |NewSearch[

ri::rcf?" crit£"ia StartDale: Zipcode; 05.'24.'2013 CndDale: 05r24'2013 78238 DispatchProblemCatogory: TiafflcCalls COiincilDistrict:
- HorneownerAssociation: School DIsliicI: ZZCALLS FORSERVICE RETURNED
JriCIUIiNt SHtitBSn SAPD-2013- 0464642 S4PD-2013- 04B4743 SAPD-2013- 0484809 SAPD-2013- 04B4880 SAPD-2013- 0484965 SAPD-2013- 048496S SAPD-2013- 0485013 SAPD-2013- 0485014 SAPD-2013- 046S916 SAPD-2013- Cf.TeCOnr fROBLFM r-i-pt; Rfi.'iJ'l.WREOAfi; AnrjatS;.
TrafficRelated
MajorAccident
TrafficRelslcd
TrafficRelated
TrafficRelated
MriurAccident
MinorAccident
TrafficRelated
Abandoned 5-24/2013 12:1321 AM 5/24/2013 125825AM 5/24-2013 1:27:49AM 5/24/2013 2:0226AM 5/24/2013 2:49:4/AM 5/24.-2013 2:53:35 AM 5/24/2013 3:32:39AM 5/24/2013 3:32:50AM 5/24/2013 1152:42AM 5-24/2013 5900-S9B80«:HANGEPKWY BANDERARD /NWLOOP410 2800CinemaRdg WB NWLP 410OFRPEXCHANI^PY
7032-7076 NWLOOP410EB 5900-5985EXCHANGEPKWY NwLoop410/ExchangePxwy NwLoop410Wb/WjNwLp410Ofrp BondoraRd NwLoop410Wb/CiilebraRd 6000SeacroffDr Thtinderbird Hills SGHQCIL OiSTRICT NorthSide ISD NorthSide ISD NorthSide ISD NorthSide ISD Nonh Side LSD North Side ISD Norlt) Side ISD NormSide ISD NorthSide ISD SelectLanguage T

COUNCIL DISTRICT

Copyright@2013City ofSanAntonio 

### ADAComprrance(/aeUO I Telecommuting(/easU) | SHeMap(/websitemapa9px) | OpenRecords(topenQOvemmenU) | CordactIfe(/conUctfl | Privacy Policy and Disclaimer(Idisclaimor.aspx)

## CityofSanAntonio 

## SanAntonioPoliceDepartmentCaiisForServiceReport

StartDate: 05/24/2013 ZIpcode: 78238 CouncilDistrict: HomeownerAssociation: RECORDS RETURNED: EndDate: 05/24/2013 DispatchProblemCategory; TrafficCalls School District;

IncidentNumber Category ProbiemType ResponseDate SAPD-2013-0484642 TrafficCalls Traffic Related SAPD-2013-0484743 TrafficCalls DWI SAPD-2013-0484809 TrafficCalls MajorAccident SAPD-2013-0484880 TrafficCalls TrafficRelated SAPD-2013-0484965 TrafficCalls TrafficRelated SAPD-2013-0484968 TrafficCalls Traffic Related SAPD-2013-0485013 Traffic Calls MinorAccident SAPD-2013-0485014 TrafficCalls MinorAccident SAPD-2013-0485918 TrafficCalls TrafficRelated SAPD-2013-0486803 TrafficCalls Abandoned Vehicle 5/24/2013 0:13:21 5/24/2013 0:58:25 5/24/2013 1:27:49 5/24/2013 2:02:26 5/24/2013 2:49:47 5/24/2013 2:53:35 5/24/2013 3:32:39 5/24/2013 3:32:50 5/24/2013 11:52:42 5/24/2013 15:41:47 Address 5900-5985 EXCHANGE PKWY BANDERARD/ NW LOOP410 2800CinemaRdg WBNWLP410OFRP EXCHANGE PY 7032-7076 NWLOOP410 EE 5900-5985 E'iCHANGE PKWY NwLoop410'Exchange Pkwv NwLoop410Wb /WbNw Ld410Ofro Bandera Rd NwLoop410Wb /Culebra Rd 6000 SeacroftOr :SAPD-2013-0486866 i 1Traffic Calls TrafficRelated 5/24/2013 16:00:57 CallaghanRc /CulebraRd SAPD-2013-0487008 iTrafficCalls MinorAccident 5/24/2013 16:41:27 Nw Loop410Wb / Ingram Rd 

### SAPD-2013-0487011 ,Traffic Calls MajorAccident 5/24/2013 16:42:19 Nw Loop410/ Ingram Rd SAPD-2013-0487203 1TrafficCalls MinorAccident 5/24/2013 17:37:40 NwLoop410/CulebraRd 

### Report Generated: 7/14/2014 12:45:53PM

HOAName. SchoolDlstrict Council Zipcode District

IThunderbird Hills North Side ISD North Side ISO North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238

### IntidentNumber I Category ProblemType I ResponseDate Address SAPD.2013-0487267 TrafficCalls MinorAccident 5/24/2013 17:58:42 6300NwLoop410 SAPD-2013-0487540 TrafficCalls TrafficRelated 5/24/2013 19:08:54 NwLoop410IngramRd SAPD-2013-0487575 TrafficCalls MinorAccident 5/24/2013 19:20:06 Nw Loop410s/Vb/ BanderaRd SAPD-2013-0487631 TrafficCalls 5/24/2013 19:34:44 ALAMO DQV/NSPKWY/ NWLOOP 410 SAPD-2013-0487640 TrafficCalls MinorAccident 5/24/2013 19:38:37 5900 BanderaRd SAPD-2013-0487790 TrafficCalls DWI 5/24/2013 20:26:10 Nw Loop410Wb/Culebra Rd SAPD-2013-0488037 TrafficCalls TrafficRelated 5/24/2013 21:53:48 Nw Loop410Wb /Culebra Rd SAPD-2013-0488095 TrafficCalls AccidentPrivate Prooertv 5/24/2013 22:14:39 Still Brook/Timberhill Dr SAPO-2013-0488237 TrafficCalls MinorAccident 5/24/2013 23:08:19 IngramRd / NwLoop410 Wb 

### HOAName SchootDlstrict Council Zlpcode*| I' District North Side ISD North Side ISO North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD North Side ISD 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238 78238EXHIBIT 2

38July 31. 2017 Hon. Judge Scott Roberts Presiding Judge County Court 12 300 Dolorosa, 2nd Floor San Antonio, TX. 78205.

RE: Trial Cause: The State of Texas v. Benjamin Elias; Trial Cause No.: 427052; Urit: Ex parte Benjamin Elias; Writ No.: 2704.

DEAR JUDGE ROBERTS:
GREETINGS. The reason for this letter is to inquire as to the status of the above-referenced cause. Please advise me appropriately regarding this matter. Should you have any questiphs or need additional information, do not hesitate to contact me at the address listed belou. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this matter. Respectfully, Benjamin Elias, pro se TDCJ-ID No. B1977B D.B. Ellis Unit 1697 FM 9B0 Huntsville, TX.77343.
Certified Hail Return Receipt No. 7013 1710 0001 0996 B454.

cc.: file.First-ClassMerl Postage&FeesPaid USPS PermitNo. G-10 

### '=!5qa l^aE gtf^l t30b ijb UnitedStates PostalService • Sender; Pieaseprintyourname, address, and2IP+4®inItiisbox* 

# fc|OtpnfV\€|[AI S TDcT'Xi?

- oe.EllisllnH tO-|2-2G)


# , 1M7 fIViqsO 

# H^n-bvi'lle,k)<qj113^3 |il||li|}llj|}Iii|jj|)|||||ii||,j|||{ili|ll|)iiiij|jjiiii||]||il|


# &l9?|i Postaje S 0.^^ titledFee ^ nslumReceiptFee (EndorsementReplied) 

## 2ns j Poeli^, '^

_I I I />
- i - ; RestrictedDellvetyFee (Endorsement Required)

TotalPostageSFees $ 

# ^5^IS I•V

... 

# t?OLOj205A aJflOOfl \'afy.siaio.ZP*4 f"

— 

## I AKnON\0.J^)(AS l9y20S

SENDER:C0MPiCTE7H/SSECW0W,,;;;\:rv!;X'; -^MPt£rEmiSSECTIONONDEUVERYsy^ Printyoui^nirrieafTd.aa'dress.on.thereverse •ISOibatiwexanretijrnXrieSardto.you;•.>• '-•. -Attachtrils'-cardto thebackof themailpiece. •oron thefrontifspacejJermits.- ,, . tAtIicIGAddressedto: 

## •Prei-jcli nt)^v{j(ae 

# ^r)hGyrt .'300-:ft|oroSc\,'2nc( .flooir r'Wj-iuOjO^ .©^Boceivedby'fPn/jreiJNdme,)
- C.iJsfieofpelW^" 0.:lsdeliveryaddressdiffe^tfrom*item17'^3^es^ . If VES.^enierdGliuetv'addrfess'lietdw;' . •-No "r



### MB 

# \