CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant prayerfully requests
this Honorable Court to review all of the court records for Cause
Nos. 61622 and 61895 to accurately appraise Applicant's request for
an out-of-time appeal via Habeas Corpus. Applicant requests that

the Court grant relief as requested.

Respectfully Submitted,

Searcy Gene Holland #1647165
Applicant Pro Se

Lynaugh Unit

1098 S. Highway 2037

Ft. Stockton, TX 79735

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true copy of the foregoing instrument was
mailed to Counsel fior the State, David Bosserman, Asst. District

Attorney, 111 E. Locust, Suite 408A, Angleton, TX 77515.

Seaccy Gene Holland


Aioci\ 15,2015
Searcy Gene Holland “iwirres
byrangh Usit
(o4e Ss. thighwway 2037
FA. Stockloa, TK 19735

Abel Acoska , Clerk : ,
Cetminal Court ef Apgeals 83, O84 “0!
P.0. Bex 12308

Cagit>| Stoton RECEIVED
Ausha TK TET COURT OF Crimtnat ypEALs
Re: WR 83,084-0] APR 20 2015
TEE 0 1B S-A Abel Acosta, Clerk

Dear Me. Acesta ‘

Please bring the enclosed Response. to State's Geely on Writ &
Habeus Corpus inthe above cause to the immedtiate attentron of

the Court, Thhaale you Le your Prom ot assistance. iw thes matte

Ss incece| vy

<
Searey ene tolland # eames
Apelicant ro Se


NO. 61895-A

EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§ OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS
SEARCY GENE HOLLAND § 23rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT

APPLICANT'S. RESPONSE TO STATE'S REPLY TO
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Applicant believes that the court will find that the State
has not directly addressed the grounds of the Applicant's Writ of
Habeas Corpus nor have they provided ampie proof that Applicant's
conviction is not defective and would submit the fallowing:

I.

Applicant urges this Honerable. Court to request the Clerk's
record and the Reporter's record for Cause No. 61622 as well as the
Reporter's tecord for the above cause. Without these records, the°
Court cannot accurately address the grounds submitted by Applicant
in this cause.

II.

In ground one, Applicant claims a jurisdictional defect
because he was convicted in @ court he did not appear in. The
State claims that local rules allowed them to transfer jurisdiction.
However, if Applicant was convicted in the 23rd District Court and
that court holds jurisdiction, why has the 149th District Ccurt
replied to Applicant's Writ of Habeas Corpus? The question of
jurisdiction is not clear.

III.

In Applicant's second ground, Applicant argues that his plea
was involuntary because the indictment did not accurately reflect
his role in the crime. All parts of the indictment must be true.

A review of the transcripts for both causes on May 12, 2010 should


reveal that Judge Robert May questioned State's counsel with regard
to Applicant's role in the crime at which time Counsel replied that
Applicant did not cause the bodily injury. ‘The State proceeded
despite knowing that the indictment was inaccurate. Eventhough
Applicant can be charged as a party to the crime, the indictment
must reflect his role in the crime.

Iv.

In his third ground, Applicant claims a ‘double jeopardy viola-
tion. As seen in Applicant's exhibit af the docket sheet for cause
no. 61622, Applicant was called into the 149th District Court on
May 12, 2010. Two cause numbers were still active. Judge Robert
May questioned State's counsel with regard to Applicant's role in
the crime. The State accurately states that no.jury was impaneled
and no witnesses were called. However, this was a plea hearing.

By questioning State's counsel about the indictments, the court

makes State's counsel a witness and attaches jeopardy to both causes.
In Brown v. State 900 S.W. 2d 805, 807 (1995) it states, 'A person

is placed in jeapardy of life or liberty at the moment jeopardy
attaches to a charge, and if prosecutor subsequently dismisses that
charge, the State loses the opportunity to try that charge forever...
The timing of the State's abandonment of the count or charge is thus
crucial in determining whether the State preserved its right to
subsequently prosecute defendant for that offense.' If the State
dismissed the charge on Cause No. 61622 in court on May 12, 2010
after entering the court room and questioning State's counsel and

prior to prosecuting Cause No. 61895, then a double jeopardy viola-

tion occurred.