COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

_________________________

CASE NO.

12-16-00154-CR

_________________________ EX PARTE JAMES IAN HAWKES

________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE 173rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

________________________________ BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

________________________________

ORAL ARGUMENT F. CLINTON BRODEN REQUESTED TX Bar No. 24001495 Broden & Mickelsen 2600 State Street Dallas, Texas 75204 (214) 720-9552 (214) 720-9594(facsimile) clint@texascrimlaw.com Attorney for James Ian Hawkes ACCEPTED 12-16-00154-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 7/7/2016 3:00:51 PM

Pam Estes CLERKI DENTI TY OF PARTI ES AND COUNSEL

Pl a i nti ff-Appel l ee: St at e o f Tex as
Tri a l Co uns el : Dan i el Co x Hen d ers on Co u n ty

Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey ’ s Offi ce 1 0 9 W . Co rs i can a St reet # 1 0 3 At h en s , Tex as 7 5 7 5 1 Appel l ate Co uns el : Hen d ers on Co u n ty Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey ’ s Offi ce 1 0 9 W . Co rs i can a St reet # 1 0 3 At h en s , Tex as 7 5 7 5 1

Defenda nt-Appel l a nt: J am es Ian Hawk es
Tri a l Co uns el : St ev en R. Green 2 1 7 N. Pal es t in e St reet , Su i tes B & C At h en s , Tex as 7 5 7 5 1 Appel l ate Co uns el : F. Cl i n t o n Bro d en Bro d en & M i ck el s en 2 6 00 St at e St reet Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 2 0 4

2TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa g e

IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES AND COUNSEL.....................................................2

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

. . . . . . ....................................................................................... 3

TAB L E O F A U T H O RITIES.......................................................................................4

S T A T E M E N T O F THE CASE....................................................................................5

STATEM ENT REGARDING O RAL ARGUM ENT.................................................6

I S S U E P R E S E N T E D

. . . . . ................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . 7

STATEM ENT OF FACTS.................................................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......8

S U M M A R

Y O F T H E A R G U M E N T

. . . . . . . . . . . ........................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

A R G U M E N T

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

I. Th e In s t an t Pro s ecu t i o n i s Barred b y t h e F i f t h A m e n d m en t t o t h e Un i t ed S ta te s C o n stitution.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

II. Th e In s t an t Pro s ecu t i o n i s Bar r e d by Pri n ci p l es o f Co ll at eral Es t o pp el ......1 5

P R A Y E R

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................................................17

CERTIFICATE O F S E R

V I C E

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................................................1 8

CERTIFICATE OF COM PLIANCE........................................................................1 9

3TABLE OF AUTHORI TI ES

Pa g e Ca s es
As h e v. S wen s o n , 3 9 7 U.S. 4 36 (1 9 7 0 )

.. . . . .................................................................. 1 2

Ex p a r t e Ro b i n s o n , 6 4 1 S.W .2 d 5 5 2 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p

. 1 9 8 2 )...................................1 2

Hu d s o n v. Un i ted S ta tes , 5 2 U.S. 9 3 (1 9 9 7 )...............................................................1 3

In r e Neces s a r

y, 3 33 S.W .3 d 7 8 2 (Tex

. Ap p

. - H o u s t

. [1 s t Di s t .] 2 0 1 0 )............... p a s si m
McDo na l d v. Ci t

y o f Ch i ca go , Il l
., 5 6 1 U

. S. 7 4 2 (2 0 10 )...........................................1 4 Reyn o l ds v. S t a t e, 4 S.W .3 d 1 3 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p

. 1 9 99 )...........................................1 5

S t a t e v. Ag u i l a r

, 9 4 7 S.W

. 2 d 25 7 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 7 ).......................................1 5

Un i ted S t a t es v. Di

xo n, 5 0 9 U.S. 6 8 8 (1 9 9 3 ).............................................................1 2

Un i ted S t a t es v. Ha l

p er , 4 9 0 U.S. 4 35 (1 9 89 )...........................................................1 3

Other Autho ri ti es
Un i ted St at es Co n s t i tu t i o n Am en d m en t II........................................................ p a s si m
Un i ted St at es Co n s ti t u t i o n Am en d m en t IV...................................................... p a s s i m
Tex

. Co de Cri m

. P. A rt

. 7 A....................................................................................8 , 1 5

Tex

. Co d e Cri m

. P. Art

. 1 7 .2 92 ................................................................................1 3

Tex

. Pen al Co d e § 4 2 .0 7 2 ..........................................................................................5

4STATEMENT OF THE CASE

J am es Ian Hawk es was ch arg ed b y i n d i c t m e n t wi t h th ree co u n t s o f s t al k i n g
J en n ifer Go i nes i n v i ol at i o n o f Tex . Pen al Co de § 4 2 .0 7 2 . CR at 1 -4

. 1

M r. Hawk es fi l ed a Veri fi ed Pl ea o f D o u b l e J eo p ard y as wel l as a Pret ri al W ri t

o f Hab eas Co rp u s t o Di s m i ss t he In d i ct m en t o n Gro u n d s o f Do u b l e J eo p ard y an d a

p ret ri al m o t i o n t o d i s m is s o n Gro u n d s o f Co ll at eral Es t o p p el

. Id

. at 2 0

- 2 2 , 3 2 -4 1.

Rel i ef o n t h e d o u bl e jeo pard y cl ai m an d t h e rel at ed co l l at eral es t o pp el cl ai m was
d en ied at a h eari n g h el d o n M ay 4 , 2 0 16

. RR at 2 7 . M r. Hawk es fi l ed a No t i ce o f Ap p eal fro m

t h at d en i al o n M ay

2 4 , 2 0 16 . CR at 4 3-4 4

.

1 References to the Clerk’s Record (“CR”) refer to the pag e number.

5STATEMENT REGARDI NG ORAL ARGUMENT

M r. Hawk es req u es t s o ral arg u m en t

.

6I SSUE PRESENTED

W h et h er t h e Do u b l e J eo p ard y Cl au se o f t h e Fi ft h Am en d m en t t o t h e Un i t ed

St at es Co n s ti t u t i o n an d / o r t h e p ri n ci p l e s o f Co l l at eral Es t o p p el b ar t he s t al k i n g

p ro s ecu ti o n i n t h i s cas e.

7STATEMENT OF FACTS

O n No v em

ber 5 , 20 1 4 , t h e 1 7 3 r d Di s t ri ct Co u rt - t h e s am e co u rt in wh i c h t h e
i n s t an t i n d i ct m en t i s p en di n g - h el d a p ro t ect i v e o rd er h eari n g i n Cau s e Nu m b er
2 0 1 4 B1 01 4

. 2 Th e p ro tect i v e o rd er cas e was p ro s ecu t ed b y t h e Hen d ers o n Co u n t y
Di s t ri ct At to rn ey’s O f

f i c e. Th e i s s u es t h e Di st ri ct Co u rt was req u i red t o d eci d e in

t h at h eari n g u n d er T ex

. Co de Cri m

. P. Art

. 7 A.0 3 , were wh et h er t h e co m p l ai n an t in

t h e i n s t an t cas e was “ t h e v i ct i m o f sex u al as s au l t o r ab u s e, s t al k i n g or traffi ck i n g ” at

t h e h an ds o f J am es Ian Hawk es

. At th e co n cl u si on o f t he heari ng , t he D i s t ri ct Co u rt
fo u n d “ fam i l y vi o l en ce” a n d “ s e x u al ab u s e.” Su p p. I CR at 1 8 9 -9 2 ; Su p p

. II CR at

3 8 6 -8 9

. As a res u l t o f t h e Co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g s , it en t ered a t wo -y ear p r o t ect i v e o rd er.
Am o n g o t h er t h i n gs , t he pro tect i v e o rd er d en i ed M r. Hawk es co n t act wi t h h i s s o n,

res t ri ct ed h i s m o vem en t , l i m i t ed h i s ab i l i t y t o p rep are fo r h i s cri m i n al cas e b y d en y i n g
h i m t h e ri g h t to em

p l o y an i n v es t i g at o r an d den i ed h i m ri gh t s u n d er th e Seco n d

Am en d m en t t o t h e Un i t ed St at es Co n st i t u t i o n t o p o s s es s a fi rearm

. A l s o , at t h e co n cl u s i o n o f t h e h eari n g , t h e Hen d ers o n Co u n t y Di s t ri ct

At t o rn ey ’ s Offi ce, ap p aren t l y t ry i n g t o gai n an ad van t ag e i n t he i n s t an t pro ceed i n g s ,

2 The transcript of that protective hearing is in the Supplement Clerk’s Record Vol I (Supp. I CR at 5-194) and Supplem ental Clerk’s Record Vol I I (Supp. I I CR at 197-391).
8req u es t ed t h e Co urt “ m ak e a s t al k i n g fi n d in g ” s tat i n g th a t i t b el i ev ed t h ere were

“ reas o nab l e gro u n d s ” t o b el i ev e t h at M r. Hawk es “ s t al k ed ” t h e Co m p l ai n an t

. Su p p.
I CR at 1 9 1 -9 2 ; Su p p

. II CR at 3 8 8 -8 9

. Th e p ro s ecu t o r ex p l ai ned t h at t h e req u es t ed

fi nd i ng o f s t al ki ng was bas ed o n M r. Hawk es ’ s al l eg ed “ rep eat ed tex t m es s ag es ” to

t h e co m p l ai n an t

. Id

. 3 T h e Co urt refu s ed t h e S t a te’ s req u es t fo r s u ch a fi n d i n g

. Id

. As n o t ed ab o v e, i n co n n ect i o n wi t h th e i n s tan t cri m in al cas e Mr. Hawk es fi l ed

a V e r i f ied Pl ea of D o u b l e J eo p ard y as wel l as a Pret ri al W ri t o f Hab eas Co rp u s t o
Di s m i s s t h e In d i ct m en t o n Gro u n d s o f Do u b l e J eo pard y an d a p ret ri al m o t i o n to
d i s m i s s o n Gro u n d s o f Co l l at eral Es t o p p el

. Th e Di s tri ct Co u rt d en i ed rel i ef s t at i n g

t h at i t “ n ev er h eard o f a ci v i l cas e b ei n g u s ed i n a cri m i n al cas e....” RR at 2 7.

3 The indictment in this case contains three different counts of the offense of stalking

. Each count contains three almost identical parag raphs. Parag raph A of each count accuses Mr. Hawkes of eng ag ing in a scheme to send “[ repeated] tex t messag es” to the complainant. Parag raph B of each count also accuses Mr. Hawkes of eng ag ing in a scheme to send “[ repeated] tex t messag es” to the complainant. Parag raph C of each count accuses Mr. Hawkes of eng ag ing in a scheme to make “repeated telephone communications” to the complainant.
9SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

In d et erm i n i n g w h et h er ci v i l p en al t i es i m p o s ed as a res ul t of t h e s am e al l eg ed

co n du ct fo r wh i ch a d efen d an t i s b ei n g p ro s ecu ted im p l i cat e Do u b le J eo p ard y

p ro t ect i o n s , co urt s l o o k t o t h e p u n i t i ve effect s o f su ch p en al t i es

. Here, as a res u l t o f

t h e p ro t ect i v e ord er h eari n g i n wh i ch Mr. Hawk es was ch arg ed wi t h t h e s am e al l eg ed

co n du ct as al l eg ed i n t h e i n s tan t i n d i ct m en t , h i s m o v em en t s w ere l i m i t ed fo r a t wo

y ear peri o d , h e was pro hi bi t ed fro m h av i n g co n t act w i t h h i s o wn so n , h e w as

p ro h ib i t ed fro m em

p lo y i n g an in v es t i g at o r wh i ch m i g h t d i rect l y i m p act h is ab i l i t y to
d efen d h i m s el f i n h i s cri m i nal ca s e , a n d h e was p ro hi b i t ed fro m ex erci s i n g h i s

co n st i t u t io n al ri g h t s un d er th e Seco n d Am en dm en t to th e Un i t ed St at es Co n s t i t u t i o n.
C o n s eq u en t ly , i n l i g h t o f t h e p u n i t i v e an d l on g l as t i n g effect s o f t h es e san c t i o n s

en t ered ag ai n s t M r. Hawk es t hat were i m p o s ed as a res u l t o f t h e p ro t ect i v e o rd er
h eari n g , t h e Do ub l e J eo p ard y cl au s e o f t h e Un i t ed St at es Co n s t i tu t i o n p ro h i b i t s t h e
i n s t an t p ro s ecu t i o n

. Wi t h reg ard t o t h e co l lat eral es t o p p el co m p o n en t o f t h e Do u b le J eo p a r d y
Cl au se, at t h e co n cl u si o n o f a fu l l p ro t ect i v e o rd er h eari ng i n wh i ch t h e co m p l ai n an t
i n t he i n s tan t cas e t es ti fi ed , th e v ery s am e Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey ’ s o ffi ce n o w p ro s ecu t i n g
M r. Hawk es req u es t ed t h e Di s tri ct Co u rt t o “ m ak e a st al ki n g fi n d i n g ” b as ed o n M r.
Hawk es ’ s al l eg ed “ rep eat ed tex t m es s ag es ” t o t h e c o m p l ai n an t

. Th e Co u rt refu s ed

10t h e St at e’ s req u es t fo r s u ch a fi n d i n g. T h e p ro tect i v e o rd er heari n g was a fu l l h eari n g;

b et ween t h e s am e p art i es ; wi t h a fact fi n d er act i n g i n a ju d i ci al cap aci t y an d t h e fact

i s su e ( i .e. wh et h er M r. Hawk es s t al ked t h e c o m p l ai n an t wi t h “ rep eat ed t ex t

m es s ag es ”) was t he s am e i n t h at p ro ceed i n g as i t wo u l d b e i n t h e i n st an t cas e. Th e
St at e vo l u n t ari ly ch o s e t o as k fo r a ru l in g o n t h i s i s su e at t h e p ro tect i v e o rd er h eari n g

an d i t s h o u l d n o t n ow h av e a s eco n d b i t e at t h e ap p le s im pl y b ecau s e i t d i d n o t l i k e

t h e an s wer.

11A RGUMENT

Th e Tex as Co u rt o f Cri m i n al A p p eal s es t ab l i s h ed t h at a p ret ri al wri t o f h ab eas

co rp u s i s an ap p ro p ri at e p ro ced ure t o rev i ew an i n d i v i d ual 's cl ai m o f d o u b l e jeo p ard y

. Ex p a r t e Ro b i n so n , 6 4 1 S.W .2 d 5 5 2 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p

. 1 98 2 ). M o reo v er, th e d en i al

o f a p r e t r i al wri t o f h ab eas co rp u s b as ed u po n a cl ai m o f d o ub l e jeo p ard y i s an

ap p eal ab l e o rd er. Id . at 5 55

. 4

I
. THE I NSTANT PROSEC U T I O N IS BARRED BY THE FI FTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNI TED STATES CONSTI TUTI ON

Th e Co n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e Un it ed St at es , i n t h e Fi ft h Am en dm en t , d ecl ares :

“

... n o r s hal l an y pers o n b e s u b ject [fo r t h e sam e o ffen se] t o b e t wi ce p u t i n jeo p ard y

o f l i fe o r l i m

b .” Th e p ro h i b i t io n al s o p ro hi b i t s m u l ti p l e p u n i s h m en t s fo r t h e s am e

ep i s o d e, o r, t h e re-l i t ig at i o n o f an y fact th at was l i t i g at ed i n t h e p rev io u s ju d g m en t

. As h e v. S wen so n , 3 97 U.S. 4 3 6 , 4 4 3 (1 9 70 ).

Th e Un i t ed St at es Su p rem e Co u r t h a s h el d t h at , i n s o m e ci rcu m s t an ces , t h e
Do u b l e J eo p ard y Cl au s e bars su b s eq u en t cri m i n al p ro s ecu tion of of f e nse s w hic h f

or m

t h e b as i s o f a p rev i ou s o rd er s i m i l ar t o t h e o n e en t ered i n th i s cas e. 5 In d eed , co n t rary

4 B ecause Mr. Hawkes arg ues that the district court misapplied double jeopardy law in this case, the denial of pretrial habeas corpus relief should be reviewed de novo

. In re Necessary , 333 S.W

. 3d 782, 787 (Tex . App.–Houst. [ 1 s t Dist.] 2010).

5 United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 700 (1993) (Double J eopardy precluded prosecution for assault on his wife following prosecution for criminal contempt for violating civil protection order which prohibited assault on her).
12t o t he Di s t ri ct Co u rt ’ s u n d ers t an d i n g t h at i t “ n ev er h eard of a ci v i l cas e b ei ng u s ed in

a cri m i nal cas e,” t h e Do u bl e J eo p ard y Cl au s e m ay , in fact , b e i m pl i cat ed ev en wh en

t h e pri o r cas e is n o t i t s el f a cri m i n al p r o ceed i n g

. 1 In t he cas e o f ci v i l pen al t i es t h e

co u rt s l o o k t o th e p u ni t i v e effect s o f s u ch p en al t i es t o d et erm i n e i f t h ey im p l i cat ed

d o u b l e jeo p ard y co n cern s

. 2 “ A s t at u t e t h at ap p l i es t o b eh av i o r t h at is al read y a cri m e
i s m ore l i k el y t o b e ch aract eri zed as a cri m i n al s an ct i o n [fo r d ou b l e j e o p a r d y

p u rp os es ]

. [Tex as p ro t ect i v e o rd er s t at u t es ] ap p l[y ] t o b eh av i o r th at i s al read y a cri m e

an d [t h ey ] s p eci fi cal l y p ro v i d e[s ] f o r fu rt h er cri m i n al p en al t ies fo r v i o l at i n g t h e

p ro t ect i v e o rd er.” 3

M r. H awk es reco g n i zes t h at t h e Ho us t o n Co u rt o f Ap p eal s reject ed a s i m i l ar

arg u m en t i n Nece s s a r

y. Nev ert h el es s , M r. Hawk es s u b m i t s t h at Neces s a r y i s
d i s t i n gu i sh ab l e an d , in an y ev en t , w ro n g ly d eci d ed

. Fo r ex am p le, Neces s a r

y d e al t
wi t h an em erg en cy p ro t ect i ve ord er u n d er Tex

. Co d e Cri m

. P. Art

. 1 7 .2 92 , t herefo re,
b y s t at u t e t h e res t ri ct i o ns p l aced o n M r. N eces sary wo u l d n o t h av e rem ai n ed i n p l ace
fo r m o re t h an 9 1 d ay s

. Here, i n co n t ras t , t h e res t ri ct i o n s o n M r. Hawk es m o v em en t s

are fo r t wo y ears

. Neces s a r y, in fact , n ot es t h at t h e em erg en cy pro t ect i v e o rd er i n t h at

1 See e.g., United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 446-448 (1989) (Double J eopardy Clause implicated when civil fine is punitive).

2 Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 98 (1997).

3 In re Necessary, 333 S.W

. 3d at 790.
13cas e was “ l i m i t ed i n

... ti m e.” Id

. at 7 9 1

. M o reo v er, u n l i ke Neces s ar y , t h e p ro t ect i v e

o rd er i n t h is cas e p ro h i bi ts M r. Hawk es fro m h av i n g co n t act w i th h is o wn s o n an d

al s o p ro h i b i t s h i m fro m em p l o y i n g an i n v es t i gat o r w h i ch m i gh t d i rect ly i m p act h i s
ab i l i t y t o d efen d h im s el f in hi s cri m i n al cas e. It can n o t be g ai n s ai d t h at l o s i n g co n t act

w i t h o n e ’s s m al l ch i l d fo r u p t o t wo y ears m ay b e a g reat er “ p en al t y ” t h an s o m e

p en al t i es i m

p o s ed i n cri m i n al cas es

. In d eed , t h e co u rt i n Neces s a r y al s o n o t ed t h at

t h e em erg en cy pro tect i v e o rd er was l i m i t ed t o o n l y p ro h i b i t in g co n t act w i t h t h e

co m p l ai n a n t i n th e cri m i n al cas e. Id

. at 7 9 1

. Fi n al l y , i n an al y zi n g t h e d i sab i l i ti es

p l aced o n a p ers o n s u bject t o a p ro t ect i v e o rd er, Neces s a r y wro n g l y d i s co u n t ed t h e
fi rearm d i s ab i l i t y by n o t reco g n i zi n g t h e fact th at t h i s di s ab il i t y d en i ed M r. Neces s ary
h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n al ri g h t s un d er th e Seco nd Am en d m en t t o t h e Un i ted St a t e s
Co n s t i t u t i o n

. See McDo n a l d v. Ci t y o f Ch ica g o , Il l
., 5 6 1 U.S. 7 4 2 (2 0 1 0)(Ho l d i n g

t h a t t h e S e co n d Am en d m en t ri g h t t o k eep an d b ear arm s is fu l l y ap p l i cab l e t o t h e
St at es .).

In li g h t of t h e p u n i t i v e an d l o n g l as t in g effect s o f t he s an ct i o n s en t ered ag ai n s t

M r

. H awk es t h at were i m p o s ed as a res u l t o f t h e p ro t ect iv e o rd er h ear i n g , M r

. Hawk es s u b m i t s t h at t h e Do u b l e J eo p ard y cl au se o f t he Un i t e d St at es Co n s t i t u t i o n

p ro h ib i t s t h e i n s t an t p ro s ecu ti o n

.

14I I
. THE I NSTANT PROSECUTI ON I S BARRED BY PRI NCI PLES OF

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

“ [C] o l l at eral es t o p p el i s a co m p o n en t o f fed eral co n s ti t ut i o nal d o u b l e jeo p ard y ju ri s p ru den ce....” Reyn o l ds v. S t a t e , 4 S.W .3 d 13 , 1 9 (Tex

. Cri m

. Ap p. 1 9 9 9 )

. Th e
el em en t s o f co l l at eral es t o p p el are: (1 ) t h ere m us t b e a fu ll h eari n g ; (2 ) b et ween t h e

s am e part i es ; (3 ) wi t h a fact fi n d er act i n g i n a j u d ici al cap aci t y ; an d (4 ) t he fact i s s u e

m u st be t h e s am e in b o t h p ro ceed in g s

. S ee S ta t e v. Ag u i l ar , 9 4 7 S.W .2 d 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 -6 0 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 7 ).

M r. Hawk es s u b m i t s t h at co l l at eral es t o p p el p ri n ci p les p ro h i b i t t h e s tat e fro m

r e l i t i g at i n g t h e is s u e o f wh et h er M r. Hawk es “ s t al k ed ” t h e co m pl ai n an t

. Fi rs t , i n

co n nect io n wi t h t h e p ro ceed i n g s u nd er Tex

. Co d e Cri m

. P. Art

. 7 A , t here was a fu l l

h eari n g o n t h e is s u e o f wh et h er t h ere were “ reas on ab l e g ro u n d s t o b el i ev e” M r.
Ha w k e s h ad s ex u al l y as s au l t ed o r ab us ed , s t al k ed o r t raffi ck ed J en n i fer Go i n es

. In d eed , M s . Go i n es t es t i fi ed fu l l y at t he p ro t ect i v e ord er heari ng an d t h e Co u rt was

p res en t ed wi t h t h e al l eg ed “ [rep eat ed ] t ex t m es s ag es .” S e co n d , at t h at p ro t ect i v e

o rd er h eari n g , Ms

. Go i nes was rep res en t ed b y th e s am e pro s ecu t o ri al o f f i c e

p ro s ecu ti n g Mr. Hawk es i n t he i n s t an t cas e. Th i rd , t h e d i s t ri ct ju dg e p res i d i n g o v er

t h e p ro t ect i v e ord er h eari n g i s t he ex act s am e d i s t ri ct ju dg e pres i d i n g o v er t h e i n s t an t

cas e. Fi n al l y , th e s am e i s s u e t h at was i n d i s p ut e at t h e p ro tect i v e o rd er h eari n g wo u ld

b e o n e o f t h e i s s ues i n d i s p u te i n th e i n s t an t cas e, to w it : wh et h er Mr. Hawk es
15“ s t al k ed ” M s

. Go i n es

.

In d eed , if th e p art ies el ect ed t o h av e a ben ch t ri al i n t he cri m in al cas e, i t wo u ld

b e co m p l et el y di s in g en uo us fo r t he Di s t ri ct Co urt , l i s t e n i n g t o es s en t i al ly t h e s am e

ev i d en ce o f al l eg ed s t al k i ng , t o fi n d t h at t h e Hen d ers o n Co u nt y Di s tri ct At t o rn ey ’ s
Offi ce p ro ved b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t wh at i t p rev i o u sl y fo u nd t hat o ffi ce co u ld

n o t ev en es t ab li s h u n d er a “ reas o n ab l e g ro un d s to b el i ev e” s tan d ard

. Li k ewi s e, ev en
i f t h e part i es p ro ceed ed to a ju ry t ri al , t h e Di s t ri ct Co u rt wo u l d l i kel y b e d u t y b o u n d

t o d i rect a v erd ict g iv en t h at i t w o u l d b e al m o s t im p o s si bl e t o co n cl ud e t h at a

reas on ab l e ju ry co u ld fi n d b ey o n d an y reas o n ab l e d o u bt wh at t he Di s t ri ct Co urt co u ld

n o t fi n d un d er th e m

u ch m o re d eferen t i al “ reas o n ab l e g ro u nd s t o bel i ev e” s t an d ard

.

16PRAYER

Fo r t h e fo reg oi n g reas o ns , t h i s Co urt s h o u l d g ran t M r. Hawk es ’ W ri t o f Hab eas
Co rp u s an d o rd er t h at t h e i nd i ct m en t ag ai n s t M r. Hawk es b e d i s m i s s ed

.

Res p ect fu l ly

s u b m i t t ed ,

/ s / F. Cl i n to n Bro d en F. CLINTON BRODEN TX Bar No . 2 4 0 0 1 49 5 Bro d en & M i ck el s en 2 6 00 St at e St reet Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 2 0 4 (2 1 4 ) 7 20 -9 5 5 2 (2 1 4 ) 7 20 -9 5 9 4(facs i m i l e) cl i nt @ t ex as cri m l aw.co m
At t o rn ey fo r J am es Ian Hawk es

17CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE

I, F. Cl i n to n Bro d en , do h ereb y cert i fy th at , o n th i s 7 th d ay of J u l y , 2 0 1 6 , I

cau s ed a co p y o f t h e fo reg oi n g d ocu m en t t o b e s erv ed b y fi rs t cl as s m ai l , p o s t ag e

p rep ai d , o n t h e H e n d e r s o n Co u n t y Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey ’ s Offi ce, 10 9 W

. Co rs i can a
St reet # 1 0 3 , At h en s, Tex as 7 5 7 5 1

.

/ s / F. Cl i n t o n Bro d en F. Cl i n t o n Bro d en

18C ERTI F I CATE OF COMPLI A NCE

Th i s b ri ef co m

p l i es wi t h t h e t y

p e-v o lu m e l i m it at i o n o f Tex

. R. Ap p

. P.9

. 4

b ecau s e t h i s b ri ef co n t ai ns 1 ,9 0 6 wo rd s , ex cl u d i n g t h e p art s of t he bri ef ex em p t ed by

t h e ru l e.

/ s / F. Cl i n t o n Bro d en F. Cl i n t o n Bro d en

19