Marla Cuellar v. Omar Maldonado ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                     ACCEPTED
    13-14-00491-CV
    THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
    2/15/2015 7:31:37 AM
    DORIAN RAMIREZ
    CLERK
    CAUSE NO. 13-14-491-CV
    In The                          RECEIVED IN
    13th COURT OF APPEALS
    Court of Appeals           CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
    2/15/2015 7:31:37 AM
    For the
    DORIAN E. RAMIREZ
    Thirteenth Appellate District                Clerk
    Corpus Christi/Edinburg, Texas
    MARLA CUELLAR                            FILED
    IN THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS              APPELLANT
    CORPUS CHRISTI
    V.                                        02/17/15
    DORIAN E. RAMIREZ, CLERK
    BY CCoronado
    OMAR MALDONADO                                                          APPELLEE
    RECEIVED
    BRIEF OF APPELLEE                                                        RECEIVED
    2/17/15
    13th COURT OF APPEALS
    E. OMAR MALDONADO                                           2/17/15
    13th COURT OF APPEALS
    Daniel M.L. Hernandez                                        KEITH C. LIVESAY
    HERNANDEZ LAW FIRM, P.C.                                     LIVESAY LAW OFFICE
    308 E. Villa Maria Rd.                                       BRAZOS SUITES NO. 9
    Bryan, Texas 77801                                           517 W. Nolana Ave.
    Telephone: 1.979.822.6100                                    McAllen, Texas 78504
    Facsimile: 1.979.822.6001                                    (956) 928-0149
    Hitesh K. Chugani                                            George D. Durham III
    H.K.C. LAW                                                   GSK LAW
    517 West Nolana #7                                           517 West Nolana, #6
    McAllen, Texas 78501                                         McAllen, Texas 78504
    Tel: (956) 212-1601                                          Tel: (956) 900-4187
    Fax: (956) 524-5153
    February 16, 2015
    i
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES                                      iii
    STATEMENT OF NATURE OF CASE                               2
    ISSUES PRESENTED                                          2
    STATEMENT OF FACTS                                        4
    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT                                       10
    ARGUMENT                                                  11
    [A] Presiding Judge Properly Ignored
    Objection to Appointed Judge                          11
    [B] Mere Disagreement With Trial Court Insufficient
    for Reversal                                          17
    [C] Contestant Failed to Present Evidence
    of Her Good Faith                                     21
    [D] Contestee Not Required to Present Time Figure
    for Each Activity                                     33
    CONCLUSION AND PRAYER                                     42
    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE                                 43
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE                                    44
    ii
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
    CASES
    Acad. Corp. v. Interior Buildout & Turnkey Constr., Inc., 
    21 S.W.3d 732
    , 742 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.)       38
    Adams v. H & H Meat Products, Inc., 
    41 S.W.3d 762
    , 769 (Tex.
    App.--Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.)                             20
    Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. v Sanderson, 
    789 S.W.2d 651
    , 653
    (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1990, no writ)                       18
    Amoco Production Co. v. Smith, 
    946 S.W.2d 162
    , 165 (Tex.
    App.--El Paso 1997, no writ)                                    38
    Amadi v. City of Houston, 
    369 S.W.3d 254
    , 256 (Tex. App.—
    Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied)                         14
    Arthur Anderson & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp., 
    945 S.W.2d 812
    , 818 (Tex. 1997)                                          37
    Bates v. Randall County, 
    297 S.W.3d 828
    , 838 n. 10 (Tex.
    App.--Amarillo 2009, pet. denied)                             40
    Beasley v. Peters, 
    870 S.W.2d 191
    , 196 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
    1994, no writ)                                                32
    Booth v. Malkan, 
    858 S.W.2d 641
    , 643-44 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth
    1993, writ denied)                                        22
    Bradt v. West, 
    892 S.W.2d 56
    , 79 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.]
    1994, writ denied)                                            21
    Burnside Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. T.S. Young Corp.,
    
    113 S.W.3d 889
    , 898 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2003, no pet.)         41
    iii
    Cantu v. Butron, 
    921 S.W.2d 344
    , 349 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi
    1996, writ denied)                                              20
    City of Laredo v. Montano, 
    414 S.W.3d 731
    , 736-37 (Tex. 2013)       41
    City of Port Isabel v. Shiba, 
    976 S.W.2d 856
    , 859 (Tex. App.—
    Corpus Christi 1998, writ denied)                             20
    City of San Antonio ex rel. City Public Service Board v.
    Bastrop Cent. Appraisal Dist., 
    275 S.W.3d 919
    , 923
    (Tex. App.--Austin 2009, pet. dism’d)                         12
    Cognata v. Down Hole Injection, Inc., 
    375 S.W.3d 370
    , 381 (Tex.
    App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied)               35
    Cuellar v. Maldonado, 
    2014 WL 2158135
     (Tex. App.—Corpus
    Christi 2014, no pet.)                                         4
    de Laurentis v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 
    162 S.W.3d 714
    , 722
    n. 6 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied)    29
    Delcor USA, Inc. v. Texas Indus. Specialties, Inc., 
    2011 WL 6224466
    at 5 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.)           41
    Delgado v. Methodist Hospital, 
    936 S.W.2d 479
    , 487-88 (Tex.
    App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ)                       23
    E.C., Jr. ex rel. Gonzales v. Graydon, 
    28 S.W.3d 825
    , 829 (Tex.
    App.--Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.)                           19
    E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. v. Robinson, 
    923 S.W.2d 549
    , 558 (Tex. 1995)                                          18
    El Apple I v. Olivas, 
    370 S.W.3d 757
    , 763 (Tex. 2012)               41
    Engelman Irrigation Dist. v. Shields Bros., Inc., 
    960 S.W.2d 343
    ,
    354 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997), writ denied per
    iv
    curiam, 
    989 S.W.2d 360
     (Tex. 1998)                             18
    Flores v. Banner, 
    932 S.W.2d 500
     (Tex. 1996)                        15
    Flores v. Velasco, 
    68 S.W.3d 86
     (Tex. App.–-Dallas 2001, no pet.) 16
    Fonseca v. County of Hidalgo, 
    527 S.W.2d 474
    , 481 (Tex. Civ.
    App.--Corpus Christi 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.)                  20
    Garcia-Udall v. Udall, 
    141 S.W.3d 323
    , 331 (Tex. App.—Dallas
    2004, no pet.)                                                  13
    Garrod Investments, Inc. v. Schlegel, 
    139 S.W.3d 759
    , 768 (Tex.
    App.--Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.)                            38
    Garza v. Dare, 
    475 S.W.2d 340
    , 342 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus
    Christi 1971, no writ)                                          5
    Gonzalez v. Ables, 
    945 S.W.2d 253
     (Tex. App.--San Antonio
    1997, no writ)                                                  16
    Gonzalez v. Nielson, 
    770 S.W.2d 99
    , 102-03 (Tex. App.—Corpus
    Christi 1989, writ denied)                                      38
    Goss v. State, 
    944 S.W.2d 748
    , 750 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi
    1997, no p.d.r.)                                               29
    Griego v. State, 
    853 S.W.2d 664
    , 666 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st
    Dist.] 1993, no p.d.r.)                                        14
    Gutierrez v. Elizondo, 
    139 S.W.3d 768
    , 775 (Tex. App.—Corpus
    Christi 2004, no pet.)                                         28
    Harbor Perfusion, Inc. v. Floyd, 
    45 S.W.3d 713
    , 717 n. 1 (Tex.
    App.--Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.)                             29
    Hays & Martin, L.L.P. v. Ubinas-Brache, 
    192 S.W.3d 631
    , 636 (Tex.
    v
    App.--Dallas 2006, pet. denied)                              40
    Hines v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 
    28 S.W.3d 697
    , 701
    (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.)                    19
    Home Owners Funding Corp. of America v. Scheppler,
    
    815 S.W.2d 884
    , 889 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1991,
    no writ)                                                       18
    In re A.S.G., 
    345 S.W.3d 443
    , 451(Tex. App.--San Antonio 2011,
    no pet.)                                                    40
    In re Braden, 
    960 S.W.2d 834
    , 836 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1997,
    no pet.)                                                    35
    In re Estate of Johnson, 
    340 S.W.3d 769
    , 789 (Tex. App.—San
    Antonio 2011, pet. denied)                                  37
    In re Estate of Washington, 
    262 S.W.3d 903
    , 906 (Tex. App.—
    Texarkana 2008, no pet.)                                    29
    In re Frost Nat. Bank, 
    103 S.W.3d 647
    , 649 (Tex. App.—Corpus
    Christi 2003, mand. denied)                                 18
    In re J.I.Z., 
    170 S.W.3d 881
    , 883 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi
    2005, no pet.)                                              19
    In re M.A.N.M., 
    231 S.W.3d 562
    , 567 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, no
    pet.)                                                       38
    Keaton v. Ybarra, 
    552 S.W.2d 612
    , 616 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus
    Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.)                              32
    Keith v. Keith, 
    221 S.W.3d 156
    , 166-67 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st
    Dist.] 2006, no pet.)                                       22
    King v. First Nat. Bank of Baird, 
    161 S.W.3d 661
    , 663 (Tex.
    vi
    App.–Eastland 2005, no pet.)                                  23
    K.J. v. USA Water Polo, Inc., 
    383 S.W.3d 593
    , 607 (Tex. App.—
    Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet denied)                       22
    La Ventana Ranch Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Davis, 
    363 S.W.3d 632
    , 651 (Tex. App.--Austin 2011, pet. denied)                41
    Law Offices of Robert D. Wilson v. Texas Univest-Frisco, Ltd.,
    
    291 S.W.3d 110
    , 113 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2009, no pet.)          22
    Llanes v. Davila, 
    133 S.W.3d 635
    , 641 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi
    2003, pet. denied)                                            30
    Loeffler v. Lytle Independent School Dist., 
    211 S.W.3d 331
    , 349
    (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2006, pet. denied)                   22
    Metzger v. Sebek, 
    892 S.W.2d 20
    , 53 n. 31 (Tex. App.–Houston
    [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied), cert. denied, 
    516 U.S. 868
    ,
    
    116 S.Ct. 186
    , 
    133 L.Ed.2d 124
     (1995)                          33
    Miller v. Armogida, 
    877 S.W.2d 361
    , 365 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st
    Dist.] 1994, writ denied)                                  35
    Mission Consol. Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 
    372 S.W.3d 629
    , 635
    (Tex. 2012)                                                  32
    Monroe v. Grider, 
    884 S.W.2d 811
    , 817 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994,
    writ denied)                                              23
    Moore v. Edna Hospital Dist., 
    449 S.W.2d 508
    , 520 (Tex. Civ.
    App.--Corpus Christi 1969, no writ)                            5
    New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
    Co., 
    856 S.W.2d 194
    , 205 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1993, no writ)     29
    Ogunboyejo v. Prudential Property and Cas. Co., 
    844 S.W.2d vii
    860, 863 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, writ denied)              34
    O'Carolan v. Hopper, 
    414 S.W.3d 288
    , 299 (Tex. App.--Austin
    2013, no pet.)                                                 14
    Owen v. Jim Allee Imports, Inc., 
    380 S.W.3d 276
    , 289 (Tex. App.—
    Dallas 2012, no pet.)                                         30
    Perkins v. State, 
    367 S.W.2d 140
    , 146 (Tex. 1963)                  12
    Prize Energy Resources, L.P. v. Cliff Hoskins, Inc., 
    345 S.W.3d 537
    , 576 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2011, no pet.)              35
    Reading & Bates Const. Co. v. O'Donnell, 
    627 S.W.2d 239
    , 244
    (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1982, writ ref’d n.r.e.)            19
    Regalado v. Munoz, 
    2014 WL 3542056
     (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi
    2014, no pet.)                                            5
    Robson v. Gilbreath, 
    267 S.W.3d 401
    , 405-06 (Tex. App.—Austin
    2008, pet. denied)                                        22
    Sabine Offshore Service, Inc. v. City of Port Arthur, 
    595 S.W.2d 840
    , 841 (Tex. 1979)                                          29
    Scheel v. Alfaro, 
    406 S.W.3d 216
    , 227 (Tex. App.--San Antonio
    2013, pet. denied)                                             30
    Scott Bader, Inc. v. Sandstone Products, Inc., 
    248 S.W.3d 802
    ,
    816 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.)            35
    Sellers v. Gomez, 
    281 S.W.3d 108
    , 116 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2008,
    pet. denied)                                                 34
    Springer v. Johnson, 
    280 S.W.3d 322
    , 329 (Tex. App.--Amarillo
    2008, no pet.).                                               14
    viii
    Stockton v. Offenbach, 
    336 S.W.3d 610
    , 618 (Tex. 2011)             12
    Stooksbury v. State, 
    2009 WL 2883518
     at 5 (Tex. App.—Waco
    2009, p.d.r. ref'd)                                           17
    Tesoro v. Alvarez, 
    281 S.W.3d 654
    , 660 n. 3 (Tex. App.—Corpus
    Christi 2009, no pet.)                                        30
    Tita v. State, 
    267 S.W.3d 33
    , 38 n. 7 (Tex. Cr. App. 2008)         13
    United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 
    408 F.3d 1184
    , 1195 (9th Cir.
    2005)                                                         31
    Vazaldua v. Munoz, 
    2014 WL 2937014
     (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi
    2014, no pet.)                                            5
    View Point Bank v. Allied Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 
    439 S.W.3d 626
    , 636 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2014, pet. filed)               37
    Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sholl, 
    990 S.W.2d 412
    , 420 (Tex. App.--
    Corpus Christi 1999, writ denied)                              18
    Wortham v. Walker, 
    133 Tex. 255
    , 
    128 S.W.2d 1138
    , 1150 (1939)      14
    Zeifman v. Nowlin, 
    322 S.W.3d 804
    , 809-10 (Tex. App.—Austin
    2010, no pet.)                                                22
    STATUTES
    Tex. Elec. Code §231.004                                           11
    Tex. Elec. Code §232.010                                           15
    Tex. Gov't Code §74.056(a)                                         13
    Tex. Gov't Code §74.053                                            11
    ix
    WAIVER OF ORAL ARGUMENT
    Exactly like the table of authorities, "[O]ral arguments are as
    useless." Wice, An Invitation to Persuade? We Decline, 15 TEX. LAW. 32
    (1999).   It adds little to the ultimate result of a contested case.
    Aldisert, WINNING   ON   APPEAL: BETTER BRIEFS   AND   ORAL ARGUMENT 294 (NITA
    rev. ed. 1996). This Court has already reached this conclusion and
    has denied oral argument. Appellee wholeheartedly agrees with
    this Court's assessment.
    x
    CAUSE NO. 13-14-491-CV
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    For the
    Thirteenth Appellate District
    Corpus Christi/Edinburg, Texas
    MARLA CUELLAR
    APPELLANT
    V.
    E. OMAR MALDONADO
    APPELLEE
    BRIEF OF APPELLEE
    E. OMAR MALDONADO
    TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
    NOW COMES E. OMAR MALDONADO, Appellee in the above
    styled and numbered cause, and files this his BRIEF OF APPELLEE,
    demonstrating that the regional presiding judge properly denied
    Appellant’s objection to reassignment of the retired trial judge who
    was already familiar with the matter, and that sanctions are clearly
    appropriate when the losing candidate repeatedly admits she does
    not possess evidence to support her allegations.
    xi
    STATMENT OF NATURE OF CASE
    The loser of a judicial primary race files an election contest,
    parroting the allegations contained in the Election Code for
    obtaining new election.    But such petition ignored one problem:
    such allegations were premised on a wing and a prayer, instead of
    actual evidence of an improper tally.      The election winner was
    required to expend $60,000 attempting to vindicate the results and
    clean the stain on the election and his judicial position. The trial
    court, the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, Hon. J.
    Manuel Banales, visiting judge presiding, finds such election contest
    completely without merit, and accordingly sanctions the losing
    candidate and her attorneys for the cost of the defense. And from
    such sanctions, the losing candidate appeals.
    ISSUES PRESENTED
    Does the Election Code provide a party to an election contest
    an absolute right to object to the appointed judge?
    Do specific statutes control over general statutes?
    Would permitting a party to an election contest an absolute
    xii
    right to object to the appointed judge run contrary to the Legis-
    lature's express policy of expedited resolution of election contests?
    Must a litigant possess evidence of an improper vote tally
    before she files an election contest?
    Does a litigant engage in sanctionable conduct when she files
    an election contest without any evidence to support her allegations
    that the election tally does not represent the true intention of the
    voters?
    Must testimony in a deposition be actually presented to the trial
    court, before it can be considered as substantive evidence, either at
    trial or on appeal?
    In adjudicating an appeal, can this Court consider evidence
    which was never expressly presented to the trial court?
    Does the adage that a prosecutor could convince a grand jury
    to indict a ham sandwich ring true in the Rio Grande Valley?
    Are the underlying merits of a claim adjudicated in a plea to
    the jurisdiction?
    Is a sanction excessive when the amount awarded constitutes
    the costs for defending frivolous litigation?
    xiii
    Must the attorney's fees awarded as sanction be premised on
    evidence of their reasonableness and necessity?
    Must a litigant seeking to recover attorney's fee prove how
    each second of time was spent?
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    The case at bar presents the sequel to Cause No. 13-14-228-CV,
    Cuellar v. Maldonado, 
    2014 WL 2158135
     (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi
    2014, no pet.), Cl.R. 17-27. This Court in the prior appeal completely
    ignored the entire lack of evidence to support the claims of an
    improper election result (which thus rendered the initial dismissal for
    lack of jurisdiction harmless).   Now this Court must address such
    complete lack of evidence, but in the context of sanctions
    awarded.
    Marla Cuellar, Appellant herein, and E. Omar Maldonado,
    Appellee herein, were both vying to be the democratic party
    candidate for the County Court at Law No. 8 of Hidalgo County.
    After a hard fought campaign, the voters decided: the majority of
    Democrats wanted Appellee to be their next County Court at Law
    No. 8 judge. Mr. Maldonado received 51.82% of the vote, thereby
    xiv
    avoiding a run off. 5 C.R. 23.
    Numerous candidates could not believe the election results.
    given the disparities of the final tally and their polling data. But the
    only piece of concrete evidence impugning the result was the
    malfunctioning of a single voting machine in the District Attorney's
    race.    Nevertheless, numerous election contests, objecting to the
    Democratic Party primary were subsequently filed.1             As part of this
    group, Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “Contestant”) filed an
    election contest in her race. Because of her allegations failed to
    sufficiently invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court in the context of an
    election contest, Garza v. Dare, 
    475 S.W.2d 340
    , 342 (Tex. Civ. App.--
    Corpus Christi 1971, no writ); Moore v. Edna Hospital Dist., 
    449 S.W.2d 508
    , 520 (Tex. Civ. App.--Corpus Christi 1969, no writ), Appellee
    (hereinafter referred to as "Contestee") filed a plea to the jurisdiction.
    While the trial court granted the plea, this Court reversed. Cl.R. 17-
    27.2
    1See,  e.g., Regalado v. Munoz, 
    2014 WL 3542056
     (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2014,
    no pet.); Vazaldua v. Munoz, 
    2014 WL 2937014
     (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2014, no
    pet.); Cuellar v. Maldonado, supra.
    2This Court's opinion completely failed to cite (much less discuss) the legal
    authorities which supported the trial court's decision.
    xv
    Pursuant to the election code, an out of county visiting judge
    must be appointed to adjudicate an election contest.                  Tex. Elec.
    Code §231.004. Pursuant to this statutory requirement, after remand,
    the presiding administrative judge reappointed a retired judge to this
    matter, Hon. J. Manuel Banales, the same judge who had previously
    granted the plea to the jurisdiction. Cl.R. 45. In an effort to further
    delay the proceedings, Contestant objected to Judge Banales,
    demanding the appointment of another visiting judge. Cl.R. 46-48.
    The presiding administrative judge, sua sponte,3 denied Contestant’s
    request, based upon his interpretation of the applicable statutes.
    Cl.R. 49-50.
    Judge Banales subsequently set Contestant’s election contest
    for trial. Because no evidence supported Contestant's allegations,
    Contestee filed a motion for sanctions, seeking relief under Tex. Civ.
    Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 9, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 10, and
    Tex. R. Civ. P. 13. Cl.R.93-98.4 To insure that Contestant appeared at
    3Contestee   did not enter this fray; his main interest was obtaining an expedited
    resolution of Contestant's claims, whether it be before Judge Banales or before
    another visiting judge.
    4Contestant failed to assert special exceptions to the motion, or otherwise
    complain of the motion's insufficiency.
    xvi
    trial, she was served with a trial subpoena. Cl.R. 57, 60-61.5
    Ignoring the subpoena, Contestant failed to appear at the
    scheduled trial, and was instead vacationing in Alaska.6 3 C.R. 12; 4
    C.R. 17; Cl.R. 52. Because her counsel informed her of the trial date,
    3 C.R. 13, either Contestant did not care about her election contest,
    or she was attempting to further delay the proceedings. Contestee
    objected.     Cl.R. 83-92.     But such misconduct succeeded: Judge
    Banales reset the trial of her election contest. 3 C.R. 33; 4 C.R. 16.7
    The new trial date approached, and finally Contestant realized
    that she could not prevail on her claims. Consequently, she non
    suited her contest. 5 C.R. 5. Contestee demanded that her claims
    be dismissed with prejudice, which the trial court granted. Cl.R. 136.
    Accordingly, Contestee proceeded with his motion for sanctions. 5
    C.R. 7.
    To support such motion, Contestee presented damning
    testimony from Contestant's own lips: she was asked what evidence
    5Contestant  was not happy about this. Cl.R. 92.
    6Given  the pennies public servants are paid, and the impecunious legal market,
    the closest Contestee and his attorneys will ever get to Alaska is by watching the
    Travel Channel.
    7Contestee also filed a motion for contempt for such a blatant abuse of the
    process. Cl.R. 130-33.
    xvii
    supported various allegations contained in her petition, and she
    repeatedly responded, "I don't have any".                    5 C.R. 25-34.   The
    impropriety of such conduct was confirmed by Contestee's attorney,
    who also testified that, based on the evidence developed, the
    contest was frivolous, 5 C.R. 44, and that $60,000 was expended in
    defending Contestee against Contestant's spurious allegations.                  5
    C.R. 43-44. Contestant's response at the hearing: dead silence; she
    completely failed to present any evidence to contradict her
    repeated admissions of "no evidence" made during her deposition.8
    5 C.R. 35.
    After considering such evidence, Judge Banales made the
    following findings:
    The Court finds that Contestant alleged in her petition
    that based on irregularities‒tampering with electronic
    voting and equipment and the resulting misdirecting of
    votes‒ that were reported in the race for District Attorney
    in the same primary election as hers, the final tabulation in
    her race for Judge of County Court at Law No. 8 may
    have been affected by the same irregularities. It was
    necessary, she alleged, that the voting machines be
    examined to determine whether any tampering had
    occurred or any votes misdirected in her race. She appears
    to be saying that, because of the alleged irregularity that
    8Asexplain in more detail, infra, Contestee does not believe the other portions of
    Contestant's deposition testimony, which allegedly justified her conduct, were
    properly before the trial court.
    xviii
    occurred in another race, it must have occurred in her
    race as well. The Court finds that this pleading is
    groundless and frivolous without any allegation of facts to
    support it and that it was made in bad faith.
    The Court further finds that, during her deposition
    testimony presented as evidence, Contestant admitted that
    she had no evidence to support her allegations, that she
    had no facts to support a charge of tampering of the voting
    machines, that no voter had complained of any irregularity
    in her race similar to what was reported in the District
    Attorney’s race, that she had no evidence that any of votes
    had been diverted to Contestee, and that she had no
    evidence of election fraud committed by anyone. The
    Court also finds that Contestant had no evidence that
    Contestee may have tampered with the election machines
    or the vote or the outcome of the election. Even so, she
    filed her election contest without knowledge of any facts to
    support it. The [Court] finds that this pleading is
    groundless and frivolous without any allegation of facts to
    support it and was made in bad faith.
    A sanction may be imposed against a party, her counsel or
    both. Counsel has a duty to make a good faith preliminary
    inquiry to determine whether facts exist to support a claim
    by a potential plaintiff and to plead sufficient facts to show
    that the claim has merit. Mere speculation or surmise is
    not enough. A careful reading of the petition shows that
    counsel did not plead facts to show that Contestant is
    entitled to relief. It is proper in this case to impose
    sanctions against both Contestant and her counsel.
    Cl.R. 170 (emphasis added).9 As a result, both Contestant and her
    attorneys were sanctioned $60,000, jointly and severally. Cl.R. 172.
    Naturally disliking this result, Contestant appealed this judgment.
    9Suchfindings clearly satisfy Tex. R. Civ. P. 13's requirement of specificity, and
    Contestant fails to complain of lack of specificity herein.
    xix
    Cl.R. 173-74.
    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
    Generally, a litigant possesses the right to object to an
    appointed judge.      However, such right is limited to appointments
    made pursuant to the Government Code. In the case at bar, Judge
    Banales' appointment was made pursuant to the Election Code. No
    right exists to automatic disqualification exists under the Election
    Code.
    Every litigant (including candidates who file election contests)
    are required to investigate their claims prior to filing their petition. In
    the case at bar, the trial court heard uncontradicted evidence that
    Contestant did not possess any evidence to support the allegations
    contained in her contest, and did not possess any evidence on the
    day the contest was filed. As a result, the trial court was well within
    its discretion in sanctioning Contestant.
    The amount of sanctions awarded lies within the discretion of
    the trial court, and thus the abused litigant is not required to prove
    either the reasonableness or necessity of his attorney's fees.
    Accordingly, whether Contestee provided time figures for each
    xx
    second spent in defense of this lawsuit is completely irrelevant, and
    does not impugn the trial court's award. Furthermore, a sanction
    cannot be considered excessive when it constitutes the costs of
    defense.
    ARGUMENT
    [A] Presiding Judge Properly Ignored Objection to Appointed Judge
    The Election Code provides as follows:
    (a) The judge of a judicial district that includes
    any territory covered by a contested election
    that is less than statewide is disqualified to
    preside in the contest.
    (b) If a contest is filed in which a judge is
    disqualified under Subsection (a), the district
    clerk shall promptly call the filing to the
    attention of the judge. The judge shall promptly
    request the presiding judge of the admini-
    strative judicial region to assign a special judge
    to preside in the contest.
    Tex. Elec. Code §231.004. However, the Government provides as
    follows:
    (a) When a judge is assigned to a trial court
    under this chapter:
    (b) If a party to a civil case files a timely
    objection to the assignment, the judge shall not
    hear the case. . . .
    xxi
    (c) An objection under this section must be
    filed not later than the seventh day after the
    date the party receives actual notice of the
    assignment or before the date the first hearing
    or trial, including pretrial hearings, commences,
    whichever date occurs earlier. . . .
    (d) An assigned judge or justice who was
    defeated in the last primary or general election
    for which the judge or justice was a candidate
    for the judicial office held by the judge or
    justice may not sit in a case if either party
    objects to the judge or justice.
    Tex. Gov't Code §74.053 (emphasis added). Based on the wording
    of such statutes, the presiding judge refused to disqualify Judge
    Banales based on Contestant's objection; his appointment was
    pursuant to the Election Code (which does not provide for
    objections to assignments) and not the Government Code (which
    does). Cl.R. 49-50. In light of the subsequent sanctions, Contestant
    naturally complains of the presiding judge's action. However, the
    presiding judge herein correctly applied the applicable statutes.
    “[I]t is settled that every word in a statute is presumed to have
    been used for a purpose; and a cardinal rule of statutory
    construction is that each sentence, clause and word is to be given
    xxii
    effect if reasonable and possible.” Perkins v. State, 
    367 S.W.2d 140
    ,
    146 (Tex. 1963). Thus, statutes must be enforced as written, City of
    San Antonio ex rel. City Public Service Board v. Bastrop Cent.
    Appraisal Dist., 
    275 S.W.3d 919
    , 923 (Tex. App.--Austin 2009, pet.
    dism’d), despite any imperfections contained therein. Stockton v.
    Offenbach, 
    336 S.W.3d 610
    , 618 (Tex. 2011).
    A litigant’s right to an automatic objection applies to visiting
    judges appointed pursuant to the Government Code; the statute
    providing such rights expressly states that it exists for judges
    appointed under "this subchapter". Tex. Gov’t Code §74.053. The
    Government Code's provisions of "This subchapter" authorizes the
    presiding judge to appoint judges " to hold special or regular terms of
    court in any county of the administrative region to try cases and
    dispose of accumulated business." Tex. Gov't Code §74.056(a). But
    given the nature of Contestant's allegations, Judge Banales'
    appointment was pursuant to (and limited by) the Election Code,10
    and not the Government Code.                 Cl.R. 49-50; Tex. Elec. Code
    10Contestant's  claim that Judge Banales' appointment was the functional
    equivalent to an appointment under Chapter 74 of the Government Code,
    Appellant's Brief, p. 11, is false. The Election Code specifically limits whom may
    be appointed to preside over an election contest.
    xxiii
    §231.004. Thus, pursuant to the plain terms of the statute, Contestant
    did not possess the statutory right to object to Judge Banales.
    Such construction is consistent with other maxims of statutory
    construction. "A fundamental rule of statutory construction is that a
    more specific statute controls over a more general one." Garcia-
    Udall v. Udall, 
    141 S.W.3d 323
    , 331 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2004, no pet.);
    accord, Tita v. State, 
    267 S.W.3d 33
    , 38 n. 7 (Tex. Cr. App. 2008). Thus,
    when the law makes a general provision, apparently for all classes,
    and a special provision for a particular class, the general must yield
    to the special, insofar as the particular class is concerned. Springer
    v. Johnson, 
    280 S.W.3d 322
    , 329 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2008, no pet.).
    In the case at bar, the Government Code provides the general
    provision, to be applied in most cases. Tex. Gov’t Code §74.053.
    However, the Election Code provides a specific provision for
    mandatory recusal, and restricting the class of persons who may be
    appointed as visiting judge.       Tex. Elec. Code §231.004.       Such
    provisions are limited to a particular class of lawsuits, i.e. election
    contests.   Thus, the Election Code (and its lack of a provision for
    objection) controls. Springer v. Johnson, supra.
    xxiv
    Finally, Contestee would point out that “A statute should not be
    construed in a spirit of detachment as if it were a protoplasm floating
    around in space.” Wortham v. Walker, 
    133 Tex. 255
    , 
    128 S.W.2d 1138
    ,
    1150 (1939). Thus, in construing statutes, courts should consider the
    consequences of a particular interpretation. O'Carolan v. Hopper,
    
    414 S.W.3d 288
    , 299 (Tex. App.--Austin 2013, no pet.); Amadi v. City of
    Houston, 
    369 S.W.3d 254
    , 256 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2011,
    pet. denied). This remains true, even if the statute is unambiguous.
    Springer v. Johnson, supra; Griego v. State, 
    853 S.W.2d 664
    , 666 (Tex.
    App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no p.d.r.).
    The Legislature has mandated that election contests proceed
    on the "rocket docket", with an answer filed within five days, Tex.
    Elec. Code §232.010, trial within ten (10) days, Tex. Elec. Code
    §232.012(d), and only one continuance permitted. Tex. Elec. Code
    §232.012(e).    Permitting objections to assigned judges can only
    interfere with the Legislature's mandate of expedited resolution of
    election contests. Theoretically, if the presiding administrative judge
    kept appointing retired judges (who may be the only ones willing to
    accept such politically radioactive appointments), trial on the merits
    xxv
    could be postponed indefinitely. But even if retired judges were not
    appointed, permitting objections inevitably delay the proceedings,
    allowing the parties a week to file an objection, and then forcing the
    administrative judge to find and appoint another judge. Such delay
    is directly contrary to the Legislature's intent.
    The cases relied upon by Contestant do not address the
    interplay between Tex. Elec. Code Tex. Elec. Code §231.004 and Tex.
    Gov’t Code §74.053.11 For example, in Flores v. Banner, 
    932 S.W.2d 500
     (Tex. 1996), one of the litigants repudiated the settlement, and
    accordingly, filed a motion to recuse the judge.                 A judge was
    appointed to hear the recusal motion, and the litigant filed a
    blanket objection to any retired judge. The Supreme Court held that
    this blanket objection was sufficient. Id at 501-02. However, such
    appointment was made pursuant to the Government Code, id at
    501; the Election Code does not contain any provisions for the
    appointment of judges when a motion to recuse is filed.
    The case of Flores v. Velasco, 
    68 S.W.3d 86
     (Tex. App.–-Dallas
    11Indeed,   for two of the cases, although arising out of an election contest, the
    litigation had ceased being about an election, but instead involved efforts to
    enforce a settlement.
    xxvi
    2001, no pet.) continued this saga. In the litigation to enforce the
    settlement, the visiting judge (who had been elected to the bench)
    retired. Consequently, the administrative judge reassigned the same
    visiting judge, pursuant to the Government Code.          One of the
    litigants objected. “The unique question presented by this case is
    whether a judge's previous status as a sitting judge assigned to this
    case precludes a section 74.053 objection.”         Id at 88.      Again,
    because the lawsuit involved enforcement of a settlement, and the
    appointment was made pursuant to the Government Code.
    Finally, in Gonzalez v. Ables, 
    945 S.W.2d 253
     (Tex. App.--San
    Antonio 1997, no writ), two election contests were filed, and thus the
    presiding administrative judge appointed two special judges. Again,
    such appointment was made pursuant to the Government Code.
    The litigants objected to these special judges, and accordingly, the
    administrative judge appointed himself to preside over the contest.
    Again, the litigants objected, but to no avail; the administrative
    judge was merely exchanging benches, and thus the right to
    disqualification did not apply. Id at 254.
    [B] Mere Disagreement With Trial Court Insufficient for Reversal
    xxvii
    In her brief, Contestant failed to address the applicable
    standard of review for the imposition of sanctions. Such an omission
    constitutes a briefing deficiency which can mandate rebriefing or
    even summary affirmance of the trial court's decision.               See,
    Stooksbury v. State, 
    2009 WL 2883518
     at 5 (Tex. App.--Waco 2009,
    p.d.r. ref'd).    Recognizing that such relief may be too harsh,
    Contestee will attempt to correct this omission.
    As this Court has noted, "A reviewing court cannot conclude
    that a trial court abused its discretion if, in the same circumstances, it
    would have ruled differently or if the trial court committed a mere
    error in judgment." Engelman Irrigation Dist. v. Shields Bros., Inc., 
    960 S.W.2d 343
    , 354 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997), writ denied per
    curiam, 
    989 S.W.2d 360
     (Tex. 1998); accord, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours
    and Co., Inc. v. Robinson, 
    923 S.W.2d 549
    , 558 (Tex. 1995); Wal-Mart
    Stores, Inc. v. Sholl, 
    990 S.W.2d 412
    , 420 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi
    1999, writ denied); Home Owners Funding Corp. of America v.
    Scheppler, 
    815 S.W.2d 884
    , 889 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1991, no
    writ).    Rather, "A trial court abuses its discretion when it does not
    follow guiding rules and principles and reaches an arbitrary and
    xxviii
    unreasonable decision." In re Frost Nat. Bank, 
    103 S.W.3d 647
    , 649
    (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2003, mand. denied). As one reviewing
    court explained:
    The question is not whether the trial judge might
    have exercised better judgment, or made a
    mere error in judgment which are no doubt,
    common in many courts. In order for the trial
    court's actions to have been abusive, the order
    must have been so unreasonable, so arbitrary,
    or based upon so gross and prejudicial an error
    of law as to have no basis in reason or in law.
    Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. v Sanderson, 
    789 S.W.2d 651
    , 653 (Tex.
    App.--Beaumont 1990, no writ).
    In determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred, the
    reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable
    to the trial court's action, and indulge every legal presumption in
    favor of the judgment or order. In re J.I.Z., 
    170 S.W.3d 881
    , 883 (Tex.
    App.--Corpus Christi 2005, no pet.). If some evidence supports its
    decision, then the trial court acted within its discretion. In re L.G.G.,
    
    398 S.W.3d 852
    , 855 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2012, no pet.); Reading
    & Bates Const. Co. v. O'Donnell, 
    627 S.W.2d 239
    , 244 (Tex. App.--
    Corpus Christi 1982, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
    xxix
    Furthermore, in reviewing such abuse of discretion complaints,
    the appellate court must keep in mind the role of the trial judge. As
    this Court has explained, "[T]he trial court is in the best position to
    observe the demeanor and personalities of the witnesses and can
    feel forces, powers, and influences that cannot be discerned by
    merely reading the record." E.C., Jr. ex rel. Gonzales v. Graydon, 
    28 S.W.3d 825
    , 829 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.). Based on
    such forces, powers, and influences, the trial court determines the
    credibility of the witnesses, assigns the weight to be given their
    testimony, Hines v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 
    28 S.W.3d 697
    ,
    701 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.), and resolves and
    reconciles conflicts therein, accepting or rejecting such portions
    thereof as it sees fit. City of Port Isabel v. Shiba, 
    976 S.W.2d 856
    , 859
    (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1998, writ denied). Thus, the trial court "is
    free to reach its findings by believing or rejecting some or all of the
    contradictory testimony when assessing the comparative truthfulness
    of witnesses."   Cantu v. Butron, 
    921 S.W.2d 344
    , 349 (Tex. App.--
    Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied); see also, Roberts v. Burkett, 
    802 S.W.2d 42
    , 47 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1990, no writ); Fonseca v.
    xxx
    County of Hidalgo, 
    527 S.W.2d 474
    , 481 (Tex. Civ. App.--Corpus Christi
    1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.). This Court cannot substitute its findings for the
    trial court's concerning the credibility of the witnesses. Adams v. H &
    H Meat Products, Inc., 
    41 S.W.3d 762
    , 769 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi
    2000, no pet.).
    [C] Contestant Failed to Present Evidence of Her Good Faith
    "No litigant has the right to put a party to needless burden and
    expense or to waste a court's time that would otherwise be spent on
    the sacred task of adjudicating the valid disputes of Texas citizens."
    Bradt v. West, 
    892 S.W.2d 56
    , 79 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994,
    writ denied).     Accordingly, trial courts are authorized to sanction
    litigants for groundless pleadings and motions, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
    Code ch. 9; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 10; Tex. R. Civ. P. 13,
    and Contestee sought sanctions against Contestant pursuant to
    such authorization. Cl.R. 93-98. The purpose of imposing sanctions
    for filing groundless pleadings and motions is to deter similar conduct
    in the future and to compensate the aggrieved party for costs
    incurred in responding to the frivolous claims. Law Offices of Robert
    D. Wilson v. Texas Univest-Frisco, Ltd., 
    291 S.W.3d 110
    , 113 (Tex. App.--
    xxxi
    Dallas 2009, no pet.).
    Consequently, every litigant must make a reasonable inquiry,
    both factually and legally, prior to filing any pleading or motion.
    Sanctions are appropriate if the litigant does not possess a factual
    basis for her allegations. See, e.g., Zeifman v. Nowlin, 
    322 S.W.3d 804
    ,
    809-10 (Tex. App.--Austin 2010, no pet.); Loeffler v. Lytle Independent
    School Dist., 
    211 S.W.3d 331
    , 349 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2006, pet.
    denied). A litigant is also required to anticipate affirmative defenses
    which might be pled. Booth v. Malkan, 
    858 S.W.2d 641
    , 643-44 (Tex.
    App.--Fort Worth 1993, writ denied).          A litigant cannot dodge
    sanctions merely by claiming that she possessed a belief that her
    allegations were true. K.J. v. USA Water Polo, Inc., 
    383 S.W.3d 593
    ,
    607 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet denied); Keith v. Keith,
    
    221 S.W.3d 156
    , 166-67 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
    And a litigant cannot file a lawsuit, and hope to uncover evidence
    supporting her allegations later.12      See, Robson v. Gilbreath, 
    267 S.W.3d 401
    , 405-06 (Tex. App.--Austin 2008, pet. denied).
    12Thus,the short window provided for filing an election contest addresses the
    quantum of evidence required before filing the petition, and not whether a
    contestant must possess evidence before filing such a petition.
    xxxii
    Moreover, “A trial court can impose sanctions for a party's or his
    counsel's failure to inquire into the facts after he is on notice the facts
    are not what he believes.” Monroe v. Grider, 
    884 S.W.2d 811
    , 817
    (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, writ denied). “The fact that a party refused
    requests to dismiss a frivolous claim prior to the imposition of
    sanctions is evidence which will support a trial court's determination
    that sanctions are justified in a particular case.”          Delgado v.
    Methodist Hospital, 
    936 S.W.2d 479
    , 487-88 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th
    Dist.] 1996, no writ).
    Whether to impose sanctions lies in the discretion of the court,
    and its decision will not be set aside unless an abuse of discretion is
    show. King v. First Nat. Bank of Baird, 
    161 S.W.3d 661
    , 663 (Tex. App.–
    Eastland 2005, no pet.). As previously mentioned, a trial court does
    not abuse its discretion in awarding sanction merely because an
    appellate court views the evidence differently than the trial court, or
    would have reached a different conclusion had the applicable facts
    been presented to it initially. Delgado v. Methodist Hospital, supra.
    In the case at bar, Contestant admitted that she reviewed the
    petition before it was filed. 5 C.R. 29. In it, she alleged that the
    xxxiii
    election process failed to count legal votes, and/or that election
    officials engaged in other fraud or illegal conduct or made mistakes
    that precluded an accurate count of the actual votes cast. Cl.R. 24.
    Yet, Contestant herself did not possess a reasonable basis for such
    factual allegations, and did not possess a factual basis at the time
    she filed the contest.            The trial court’s evidence came from
    Contestant’s own lips:
    Q. You have no evidence to support your allegations that
    any election official prevented eligible voters from voting
    in the County Court at Law 8 race today?
    A. Today with me, no.
    Q. Please identify the name of each election official you
    are accusing that prevented eligible voters from voting at
    the County Court at Law 8 election.
    A. I don't have that information.
    Q. Clearly -- you are not stating that you have any sort of
    evidence by clear and convincing evidence that Yvonne
    Ramon13 is the person that prevented eligible voters from
    voting, are you?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Or anyone in her department, right?
    A. Specifically, no, sir.
    Q. But generally?
    A. No, sir.
    . . . . .
    13Ms.   Ramon is Hidalgo County Elections Administrator. 5 C.R. 41.
    xxxiv
    Q. You have no clear or convincing evidence that there
    were any irregularities in the election for the County Court
    at Law 8 which would demonstrate that more than 700
    votes were either illegal, uncounted or fraudulent?
    A. Not at this time, no.
    Q. Please identify each voting poll in which illegal votes
    were counted which materially altered or affected the
    outcome of the County Court at Law 8 election by more
    than 700 votes.
    A. I don't have that information now.
    Q. You cannot identify any voters or election officials who
    conduct materially -- who affected the result of the
    outcome of the County Court at Law election by more
    than 700 votes, true?
    A. Not at this time.
    . . . . .
    Q. Okay. What training do you have or background do
    you have in telling from numbers that there is fraud?
    A. Because two plus two equals four, sir.
    . . . . .
    Q. Okay. Please identify the name of each election official
    you are accusing engaged in fraud which materially altered
    the outcome of the County Court at Law 8 election.
    A. I have none at this time.
    Q. Please identify the name of each election official that
    you are accusing engaged in illegal conduct which
    materially altered the outcome of the County Court at Law
    8 election.
    A. I'm not stating anyone specifically at this time.
    Q. Because you don't know of anyone right now, correct?
    A. Correct.
    xxxv
    Q. And you didn't know of anybody at the time that you
    filed you're election contest, correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And the day before you filed it, you didn't know -- you
    couldn't identify anyone at that time, either, correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Please identify the name of each election official you're
    accusing made a mistake which materially altered the
    outcome of the County Court at Law 8 election.
    A. I don't have any names at this time.
    Q. And you didn't have any the day before the petition
    was filed, correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And you didn't have any at the time that you filed the
    election contest with the Court, correct?
    A. Correct.
    . . . .
    Q. . . . You have no evidence to support any
    malfunction or illegal manipulation which materially
    affected the outcome of the County Court at Law 8 race --
    A Not at this time.
    Q -- by more than 700 votes?
    A Not at this time.
    . . . .
    Q Okay. What evidence do you have that there were
    irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots in the
    election that proves that true election results cannot be
    ascertained?
    A We don't have that at this time.
    Q. And you don't know when we're going to have it, right?
    xxxvi
    A. That's correct.
    Q. And it's speculation on your part of what the results are
    going to be, correct?
    A. It's speculation on everyone's part.
    Q. Which polling location specifically?
    A. I don't know exactly what polling location. I don't
    remember.
    Q. Which individuals specifically you spoke to?
    A. To friends of our family.
    Q. Okay. Who are they?
    A. I don't remember the names, all of the names at this
    time.
    Q. Just give me some of the names that you used to form
    the basis of the letter that you wrote the county judge
    about -- complaining of numerous inconsistencies and
    discrepancies?
    A. I don't have those names at this time.
    . . . . .
    Q. What evidence do you have that there were
    irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots in the
    election that proves the contestant would be declared the
    winner?
    A. We don't have that information at this time.
    Q. What evidence do you have that there were
    irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots in the
    election that proves a contestant would be declared the
    winner?
    A. We don't have that at this time.
    Q. As you sit here today, you can't point to any polling
    station or precinct that had any voting irregularities; is that
    correct?
    xxxvii
    A. Not at this time, no.
    . . . . .
    Q. One more question. As we sit here today with the
    evidence that you have before you that you've provided,
    do you believe that we should have a new election?
    A. I can't -- I can't draw a conclusion right now.
    5 C.R. 25-34, passim (emphasis added). Given the complete lack of
    evidentiary support for Contestant’s allegations, and Contestant's
    failure to present contrary evidence (despite its patent availability), 5
    C.R. 35,14 the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding
    sanctions. See, Gutierrez v. Elizondo, 
    139 S.W.3d 768
    , 775 (Tex. App.--
    Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.).
    Contestant failed to present any evidence at the hearing of
    her white heart. 5 C.R. 35. Subsequent to the hearing (and again on
    appeal), Contestant cites to other evidence in her deposition,
    evidence which she contents proves her white heart. Cl.R. 141-44.15
    But the time for presenting such evidence to the trial court was at
    the sanctions hearing.           Consequently, Contestee believes such
    evidence is not properly before this Court.
    14Contrary to Contestant's implied assertion, Appellant's Brief, p. 18, Contestee
    did not possess the burden to present evidence which contradicted his motion.
    15Contestee did not play the entire videotape deposition. 5 C.R. 24.
    xxxviii
    In reviewing a trial court's decision, this Court is limited to the
    evidence which the trial court considered,16               Goss v. State, 
    944 S.W.2d 748
    , 750 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997, no p.d.r.).                Con-
    sequently (and axiomatically), this Court is barred from considering
    matters which appear outside the record, Sabine Offshore Service,
    Inc. v. City of Port Arthur, 
    595 S.W.2d 840
    , 841 (Tex. 1979); Harbor
    Perfusion, Inc. v. Floyd, 
    45 S.W.3d 713
    , 717 n. 1 (Tex. App.--Corpus
    Christi 2001, no pet.), and it is improper for a litigant to rely on matters
    outside the record in making her arguments to the court of appeals.
    de Laurentis v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 
    162 S.W.3d 714
    , 722 n. 6
    (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). While portions of
    Contestant's deposition was referred to in her post hearing brief, it
    was never expressly presented as evidence at the hearing, and
    nothing in the record indicates that the trial court affirmatively
    considered it.17     Therefore, in determining whether the trial court
    16"Appellate  courts must base their decisions on the record as made and
    brought forward, not on a record that should have been made or that could
    have been made." In re Estate of Washington, 
    262 S.W.3d 903
    , 906 (Tex. App.--
    Texarkana 2008, no pet.).
    17As a general rule, sanctions should not be premised on the cold papers filed,
    but only after viewing the witnesses and assessing their credibility. New York
    Underwriters Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 
    856 S.W.2d 194
    , 205 (Tex.
    App.--Dallas 1993, no writ).
    xxxix
    abused its discretion, this Court cannot consider it. Tesoro v. Alvarez,
    
    281 S.W.3d 654
    , 660 n. 3 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2009, no pet.);
    Llanes v. Davila, 
    133 S.W.3d 635
    , 641 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2003,
    pet. denied).
    But even if this Court considered such evidence, this Court
    would find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Direct
    evidence of a sanctioned person's subjective intent is not required;
    mal intent may be shown by either direct or circumstantial evidence.
    Scheel v. Alfaro, 
    406 S.W.3d 216
    , 227 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2013,
    pet. denied); Owen v. Jim Allee Imports, Inc., 
    380 S.W.3d 276
    , 289
    (Tex. App.--Dallas 2012, no pet.). Furthermore, a trial court weighs
    the evidence, and determines which evidence is more credible.
    Roberts v. Burkett, supra; Fonseca v. County of Hidalgo, supra.
    To prevail in her election contest, Contestant was required to
    change or eliminate 700 votes. Only one voting machine allegedly
    contained improprieties, and the improper vote occurred in the
    District Attorney’s race, and not in the County Court at Law No. 8
    race. Cl.R. 19. This machine alone could not provide a reasonable
    basis for her election contest.   Robson v. Gilbreath, 
    supra.
         While
    xl
    Contestant indicated that she had learned of other improprieties on
    election day, she refused to identify who provided such information
    or what such improprieties were. 5 C.R. 33. She also admitted that
    her election contest was premised just on her suspicion. 5 C.R. 32.
    The trial court could infer that because Contestant did not possess
    evidence after discovery, she did not possess evidence when she
    filed her contest.
    Contestant's election petition does not specifically refer to the
    District Attorney’s Office, and that it alone will prove irregularities. 5
    C.R. 29.    While admittedly a Hidalgo County grand jury was
    investigating the voting machines, as the old adage goes, a
    prosecutor could convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
    United States v. Navarro-Vargas, 
    408 F.3d 1184
    , 1195 (9th Cir. 2005).
    But more fundamentally, the Hidalgo County District Attorney’s
    Office was not prosecuting this matter; Contestant herself was
    required to present evidence that the voting machines functioned
    improperly. Yet, she made absolutely no effort to obtain access to
    the   machines,      or   independently    investigate   such    alleged
    malfunctions and the effect on the ultimate tally. 3 C.R. 6, 9. When
    xli
    questioned by she did not attempt to investigate the machines, she
    claimed that she did not think about it. 5 C.R. 31. After reviewing
    such evidence, Contestee's attorney concluded that the election
    contest was frivolous. 5 C.R. 44. Based on this evidence (which the
    trial court found credible), the trial court did not abuse its discretion
    in awarding sanctions. Beasley v. Peters, 
    870 S.W.2d 191
    , 196 (Tex.
    App.--Amarillo 1994, no writ).
    Contestant further argues that because this Court determined
    that the trial court erred it granted pleas to the jurisdiction, then ipso
    facto, her suit possesses merit, precluding sanctions.      However, in
    adjudicating a plea to the jurisdiction, the actual merits are
    irrelevant; a plea to the jurisdiction decides whether a court can
    even reach the merits. Mission Consol. Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 
    372 S.W.3d 629
    , 635 (Tex. 2012).       Ignoring the requirement that an
    appellate court must affirm a judgment on any ground presented in
    the record, Keaton v. Ybarra, 
    552 S.W.2d 612
    , 616 (Tex. Civ. App.--
    Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.), this Court in its prior decision
    completely ignored the lack of evidence to support Contestant’s
    position. Cl.R. 17-27. "The sole issue before the Court of Appeals was
    xlii
    whether the allegations in Contestant’s petition were sufficient to
    give the trial court jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court of Appeals
    did not address the issue whether facts were pled to support the
    petition." Cl.R. 171.18 Furthermore, sanctions were not imposed on
    Contestant due to pleading insufficiencies, but because no
    evidence supported her allegations, and she made no effort to
    obtain such evidence. Cl.R. 170. Thus, this Court’s prior reversal does
    not shield Contestant from sanctions. Metzger v. Sebek, 
    892 S.W.2d 20
    , 53 n. 31 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied), cert.
    denied, 
    516 U.S. 868
    , 
    116 S.Ct. 186
    , 
    133 L.Ed.2d 124
     (1995)(pleadings
    still considered frivolous even though litigant prevailed on motion for
    summary judgment).
    [D] Contestee Not Required to Present Time Figure for Each Activity
    In order to determine the amount of sanctions, Contestee's trial
    attorney testified concerning the nature of the work performed. 5
    C.R. 37-44. He also produced activity sheets, which provided a list of
    his activities. Based on the foregoing, he opined that Contestee had
    incurred $60,000 in the defense of this matter. 5 C.R. 43. The trial
    18Thus, the fact that election contests are statutorily authorized is completely
    irrelevant to sanctions.
    xliii
    court found such testimony credible, and awarded this amount.
    19 Cl.R. 172
    .      Naturally, Contestant does not find such testimony
    credible, and consequently claims the trial court abused its
    discretion. Naturally, Contestee's disagrees with such assessment of
    the evidence.         But on a more fundamental level, Contestee
    disagrees with Contestant's premise, i.e. that he was required to
    present evidence demonstrating the reasonable and necessary
    nature of attorney's fees in this context.
    {1} REASONABLE AND NECESSARY PROOF UNNECESSARY
    When a litigant is seeking attorney's fees for breach of contract
    or violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, he must
    prove that the attorney's fees expenses sought are reasonable and
    necessary. However, when attorneys' fees are sought as sanctions,
    the movant is need not present evidence any evidence of either
    necessity or reasonableness.         Sellers v. Gomez, 
    281 S.W.3d 108
    , 116
    19“The choice of sanctions is for the trial court to determine, and so long as the
    sanctions are within the authority vested in the trial court they will not be
    overturned unless they constitute a clear abuse of discretion.” Ogunboyejo v.
    Prudential Property and Cas. Co., 
    844 S.W.2d 860
    , 863 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
    1992, writ denied). Because the sanctions awarded compensated Contestee
    for the amount of attorney's fees he incurred in defending the election contest,
    the sanctions fulfilled one of its designed purposes, and thus was not excessive.
    xliv
    (Tex. App.--El Paso 2008, pet. denied); Miller v. Armogida, 
    877 S.W.2d 361
    , 365 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied). Indeed, in
    this situation, the movant need not present any proof of attorney’s
    fees at all. In re Braden, 
    960 S.W.2d 834
    , 836 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1997,
    no pet.).   "In cases in which the judgment is not one for earned
    attorney's fees, but rather a judgment imposing attorney's fees as
    sanctions, it is not invalid because a party fails to prove attorney's
    fees." Scott Bader, Inc. v. Sandstone Products, Inc., 
    248 S.W.3d 802
    ,
    816 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Accordingly, an
    appellant who complains of "no evidence" or "insufficient evidence"
    of necessity or reasonableness to support attorney's fees awarded
    qua sanctions, has failed to present error. Cognata v. Down Hole
    Injection, Inc., 
    375 S.W.3d 370
    , 381 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.]
    2012, pet. denied); Prize Energy Resources, L.P. v. Cliff Hoskins, Inc.,
    
    345 S.W.3d 537
    , 576 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2011, no pet.).
    And so it is in the case at bar. Contestee was not awarded
    attorney's fees for breach of contract or violation of the Texas
    Deceptive Trade Practice Act; instead, as the trial court found, he
    was awarded attorney's fees because Contestant engaged in
    xlv
    sanctionable conduct. Cl.R. 168-72. Because attorney's fees were
    imposed as a sanction, Contestant cannot complain of any lack of
    evidence concerning reasonableness or necessity.                    Cognata v.
    Down Hole Injection, Inc., supra; Prize Energy Resources, L.P. v. Cliff
    Hoskins, Inc., supra.20
    {2} SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED OF ATTORNEY'S FEES
    At the hearing on his motion for sanctions, Contestee
    presented evidence concerning attorney's fees for the prosecution
    of the underlying election contest.           5 C.R. 37-44.    Assuming that
    Contestee was required to prove the reasonableness and necessity
    of such fees, he clearly satisfied this burden.
    In determining a reasonable and necessary attorney's fees, a
    trial court considers the following factors:
    1. the time and labor required;
    2. the novelty and difficulty of the questions
    involved, and the skill required to perform
    the legal service properly;
    3. the likelihood that the acceptance of the
    particular employment will preclude other
    20This  contention was expressly presented to the trial court, Cl.R. 164, yet
    Contestant failed to address it in the brief presented to this Court. Appellant's
    Brief, pp. 21-22.
    xlvi
    employment by the lawyer;
    4. the fee customarily charged in the locality
    for similar legal services;
    5. the amount involved and the results
    obtained;
    6. the time limitations imposed by the client
    or by the circumstances;
    7. the nature and length of the professional
    relationship with the client;
    8. the experience, reputation, and ability of
    the lawyer or lawyers performing the
    services; and
    9. whether the fee is fixed or contingent on
    results obtained or uncertainty of
    collection before the legal services have
    been rendered.
    Arthur Anderson & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp., 
    945 S.W.2d 812
    , 818
    (Tex. 1997). But these are just guidelines, not elements of proof. In re
    Estate of Johnson, 
    340 S.W.3d 769
    , 789 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2011,
    pet. denied). No one factor is controls, and the applicant is not
    required to present evidence on every factor. View Point Bank v.
    Allied Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 
    439 S.W.3d 626
    , 636 (Tex. App.--
    Dallas 2014, pet. filed); Acad. Corp. v. Interior Buildout & Turnkey
    xlvii
    Constr., Inc., 
    21 S.W.3d 732
    , 742 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000,
    no pet.). In addition to these factors, the trial court may consider the
    entire record and the common knowledge of the lawyers and
    judges. In re M.A.N.M., 
    231 S.W.3d 562
    , 567 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007,
    no pet.).
    "The amount and reasonableness of attorney's fees is a
    question of fact. . . Testimony of a local attorney as to what would
    be a reasonable fee for handling the case is some evidence to
    support an award of attorney's fees." Gonzalez v. Nielson, 
    770 S.W.2d 99
    , 102-03 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied). "Courts have
    uniformly held that any award of attorney's fees, pursuant to statute
    or under common law, is within the discretion of the trial court.
    Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, the award or failure to
    award fees will not be disturbed on appeal." Amoco Production Co.
    v. Smith, 
    946 S.W.2d 162
    , 165 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1997, no writ). A
    reviewing court cannot find an abuse of discretion merely because
    a litigant complains the award is too generous. Garrod Investments,
    Inc. v. Schlegel, 
    139 S.W.3d 759
    , 768 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2004,
    no pet.).
    xlviii
    At the hearing on sanction, Contestee presented evidence in
    support of an award.        Contestee's trial attorney testified that he
    specialized in litigation. 5 C.R. 36. He further explained that election
    contests were complex matters which “have to be handled at
    lightening speed”.     5 C.R. 36.    In addition to client conferences,
    Contestee's attorney took several depositions, including those of
    Contestant, the witnesses who allegedly witnessed the election
    machine      malfunction,    and     the   Hidalgo     County     Elections
    Administrator. He also intervened in the lawsuit wherein the voting
    machines had been impounded, obtaining a right to limited
    participation in the their testing.21 This naturally required research re
    forensic testing of voting machines.           Numerous hearing were
    attended, all of which required preparation. Furthermore, because
    election contests are not filed every day, such activity was novel,
    requiring research. 5 C.R. 38-42. As a result, Contestee's attorney
    testified that $60,000 in attorney's fees was reasonable. 5 C.R. 43-44.
    To support such activity, Contestee presented a detailed listing of his
    21Contestant's   contention that she could not obtain access to the voting
    machines is completely devoid of merit; she did not even try. Her statements
    that she did try is false.
    xlix
    activities. Contestee's Ex. 1. While Contestee's trial counsel was cross
    examined, Contestant failed to present any contradictory testimony.
    5 C.R. 49. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
    making the award.
    {3} NOT REQUIRED TO ACCOUNT FOR EACH SECOND SPENT
    Because he was not relying upon the loadstar method for
    attorney’s fee calculation,22 what Contestee's attorney failed to do
    was present testimony concerning how long each particular activity
    took for him to complete.         Seizing upon such failure, Contestant
    asserts that no evidence supports the trial court's award. But such
    position was not well taken.
    As previously noted herein, the Arthur Andersen factors merely
    constitute guidelines, not elements of proof. In re Estate of Johnson,
    supra. "[A]lthough typically the nature and extent of the services
    performed is expressed by the number of hours and the hourly rate,
    there is no rigid requirement that these facts must be in evidence for
    such a determination to be made." Hays & Martin, L.L.P. v. Ubinas-
    22The lodestar method is determining attorney’s fees by multiplying a reasonable
    number of hours worked by the prevailing hourly rate in the community for
    similar work. Bates v. Randall County, 
    297 S.W.3d 828
    , 838 n. 10 (Tex. App.--
    Amarillo 2009, pet. denied).
    l
    Brache, 
    192 S.W.3d 631
    , 636 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2006, pet. denied).
    Thus, evidence is sufficient to support an award if a total amount is
    stated, with an explanation of why such amount is reasonable and
    necessary, but without a precise amount of hours. In re A.S.G., 
    345 S.W.3d 443
    , 451-52 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2011, no pet.); In re A.B.P.,
    
    291 S.W.3d 91
    , 98-99 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2009, no pet.); Burnside Air
    Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. T.S. Young Corp., 
    113 S.W.3d 889
    , 898
    (Tex. App.--Dallas 2003, no pet.). Thus, a litigant is not required to
    present the court with a precise second by second account for
    each activity. Delcor USA, Inc. v. Texas Indus. Specialties, Inc., 
    2011 WL 6224466
     at 5 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.); La
    Ventana Ranch Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Davis, 
    363 S.W.3d 632
    , 651 (Tex.
    App.--Austin 2011, pet. denied).
    Contestant's authority does not mandate a contrary result. A
    litigant can prove reasonable and necessary attorney's fees by
    utilizing the loadstar method. Obviously, as Contestant's authorities23
    hold, if a litigant is required or otherwise utilizes the loadstar method,
    he is required to provide competent evidence of the time spent. But
    23City of Laredo v. Montano, 
    414 S.W.3d 731
    , 736-37 (Tex. 2013); El Apple I v.
    Olivas, 
    370 S.W.3d 757
    , 763 (Tex. 2012).
    li
    Contestee herein did not utilize the loadstar method, but instead
    provided a flat figure for reasonable attorney's fees. 5 C.R. 44. Thus,
    such authority is inapplicable.
    CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
    Election contests strike at the legitimacy of a public office
    holder. Such allegations create a cloud over the elected official;
    even if he is legally cleared, some citizens will believe that where
    there is smoke there is fire, and thus he improperly holds office. As
    applied to the case at bar, while Contestee's rulings now possess the
    force of law, due to Contestant's misconduct, such rulings may not
    be accepted by all the citizens appearing before him. As the trial
    court found, Cl.R. 168-72, such impugnation never should have
    occurred.
    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, E. OMAR MALDONADO,
    Contestee in the above styled and numbered cause, respectfully
    prays that the judgment of the trial court be AFFIRMED, that all costs
    be taxed against Contestant, and for all other and further relief,
    either at law or in equity, to which Contestee shows himself entitled.
    Respectfully submitted,
    lii
    Daniel M.L. Hernandez
    State Bar No. 24034479
    HERNANDEZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
    308 E. Villa Maria Rd.
    Bryan, Texas 77801
    Telephone: 1.979.822.6100
    Facsimile: 1.979.822.6001
    George D. Durham III
    Bar Card No.: 24082940
    GSK LAW
    517 West Nolana, #6
    McAllen, Texas 78504
    Tel: (956) 900-4187
    Hitesh K. Chugani
    State Bar No. 24066519
    H.K.C. LAW
    517 W. Nolana, #7
    McAllen, Texas 78504
    Tel: (956) 212-1601
    Fax: (956) 524-5153
    LIVESAY LAW OFFICE
    BRAZOS SUITES NO. 9
    517 W. Nolana Ave.
    McAllen, Texas 78504
    (956) 928-0149
    BY: __KEITH C. LIVESAY_______
    KEITH C. LIVESAY
    State Bar No. 12437100
    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
    I, KEITH C. LIVESAY, do hereby certify that the above and
    liii
    foregoing document was generated using Word 2007, utilizing 14
    point font, and contains 8626 words.
    __KEITH C. LIVESAY_______
    KEITH C. LIVESAY
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, KEITH C. LIVESAY, do hereby certify that I have caused to be
    delivered a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
    document to Appellant’s Counsel of Record, on this the 16th day of
    February, 2015.
    __KEITH C. LIVESAY_______
    KEITH C. LIVESAY
    liv