in Re Benjamin Elias

Cause No. 04 - 17 - 00722 - CR
IN THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
IN RE BENJAMIN ELIAS
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
In Trial Cause No. 427052
Writ No. 2704
from the
Twelfth County Court of Law
for Bexar County, Texas.
��TA�
B� nElias, pro se
TDCJ-ID No. 819778
0.8. Ellis Unit
1697 FM 980
Huntsville, Texas 77343.
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
RELATGR: Benjamin Elias
Counsel: Pro se
Mailing Address: D.B. Ellis Unit
1697 FM 980
Huntsville, Texas 77343.
RESPONDENT: Scott Roberts
Counsel: Unknoun
Mailing Address: Dustice Center
300 Dolorosa, 2nd Fl.
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3005.
iii.
TABLE OF COMTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL iii.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES v.
STATEMENT OF CASE 1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 2
ISSUES PRESENTED 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS 3
ARGUMENT k-5
PRAYER 5
CERTIFICATION 6
APPENDIX 7-40
EXHIBIT 1 8
Relatar*s Original liirit of Habeas Corpus uith Certified
Mail Card and Return Receipt 9-37
EXHIBIT 2 38
Letter of Inquiry to Respondent uiith Certied Mail Card
and Return Receipt 39-40
IV.
IMDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.10 k
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.11 k
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 52 2
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Riile-i52.1 2
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 72.1 2
V.
STATEMENT OF CASE
On May 16th, 2017, Relator filed an Application for IJrit of Habeas Corpus
with the Twelfth County Court of Law for Bexar County regarding constitutional
violations resulting from a driving while intoxicated prosecution. State v.
Elias, Cause No. k21Q52 (12th Cty Ct., Bexar Cty. Tex., June 13, 201 if). See
Appendix, Exhibit 1, Application for Urit of Habeas Corpus, Procedural History,
pp. 1-2. The Bexar County Clerk received said application and assigned it Urit
No. 2704. The presiding judge has not set a date for hearing or ruled on said
writ.
Relator is currently confined to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Institutional Division at the O.B. Ellis Unit in Walker County, Huntsville,
Texas. He is unlawfully restrained of his liberty as a collateral consequence
to the above-referenced misdemeanor charge and has been since May 2013. At the
time said charge was filed, Relator was on parole for an unrelated case. See
State V. Elias, Cause No. 970D11232, 243rd Judicial District Court of El Peso
County, Texas, final judgment April IB, 2001. As a collateral consequence of
said misdemeanor DDI, he was arrested and confined. Relator is currently
confined due to his subsequent parole revocation.
Respondent, Honorable Judge Scott Roberts, has not set a date for hearing
nor ruled on said writ. Mr. Roberts is the presiding judge for the Twelfth
County.iCourt of Law for Bexar County, Texas. He was the presiding judge at
Relator's trial and is the current judge for the- Twelfth County Court of Law.
By delaying a hearing, he is in fact prolonging Relator's confinement.
STATEMENT OF 3URISDICTIDW
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 72.1, Relator is
required to file an Application for Leave to File tilrit of Handatnusiin order for
the court of appeals to exercise original jurisdiction. Relator submitted said
application uiith this original petition for urit of mandamus.
Further, this Application for lilrit of Mandamus complies uith the
stiplulations set forth by Rule 52 of the TRAP regarding form and content.
Rule 52.1, states:
"An original appellate proceeding sbeking extraordinary relief—^uch as a
iiirit of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, injunction, or quo uarranto
is commenced by filing a petition uiith the clerk of the appropriate
appellate court..."
The Fourth Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction over cases originating in
Bexar County and therefore conferred jurisdiction to rule on this urit of
mandamus.
ISSUES PRESENTED
Respondent's failure to conduct a hearing regarding Relator's uirit of
habeas corpus in a timely fashion.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) Relator bias convicted of DUI in Respondent's court on June 13th, 201 5"t';!5l'Dfil'.'e'V fcae •
r ^'?r.*:' r^ftrj =|S3j''ia~;
'piV'
T-''J :'_s;:i-ji' i Fit-- , S
C-y S:,r-. ZIP-",
s/]M li'ioj
Certified Mali Provides:
• A mailing receipt
• A uiiiciue idenlilier for your mailpiece
• A record o! delivery kepi by tne Posiai Service lor two years
Imporlanf Reminders:
• Cerlilred Moil mayONLV be combined wilb Firsl-Class Mail-; or Prioniy Mailij
• Cemtiad Mail is nofavailable for any class ol international mait
• MO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED wrlli Certi'ifid Mail For
valuables, p'ease consider Insuiea or Regis'erefl Mail
• For an add-tiorral lee. a Reurn Receipt may be reguesred lo provide proof oi
delivery. ToobtainRetuirr Peceipi service,please completeandaifaC'a Reiurrr
Receipt IPS Foim 3Si t} lo the artic'e and add applicable postage tocover the
foe Endorse maiip-ece "Return ReceiptRenuesied" Toreceivea tee v.-aivet tor
a duplicate teiyn recamt,a USPSo postmarkon your Cenilied Mail receiptis
reguiied
• For an ardOitiortal fee. delivetv may be restricted lo itie adOtessee or
adurcssee s auibortjea agent. Advise the clerk or mark the mniipiece with tfie
endorsement ••ResfrcledOefiver-/'.
• Ifa postrnarkcn the Certified Ma-I teooipi i5 desired. Please prescnr fhs arti
cle at the post ollice forDostmaiking. Il ;i posimark an the CertilieoMail
receipt ip not needed, detach and aiii' label wiih postage and mail.
IMPORTANT: Save lltis receipt and (iiesenl il when making an Inquiry.
l>-'i r.-;iii .Ili.to.A-JJI.L! 20-}-i ('rincr5v) OS'J 7SJil-:V.y'i;i.466 U.S.
66H, 687-BB (1984); accord Thompson v. State, 9 5.''i.3d GOB, 21? (Tex.Crim.App.
-3-
1999). To make this showing, tha applicant must prov€ that dafense counsel's
parformanca uas (1) daficiant, and (2) that tha deficient performance prejudiced
the applicant, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 607; Thompson, 9 S.l)).3d at 012.
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel "must be firmly founded in the
record" and the claim is rsvieued against "a strong prosumption that counsel's
conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance."
Thompson, 9 5.lJ.3d at fl13. To do so, tha record must affirmatively demonstrate
the alleged ineffectiveness." Id.
To establish prejudice, the applicant mu3(- .show that there is a reasonable
probability {Kat hut for defense counsel's unprofessional error, the outcome of
the trial woulri i.vs been different. Hernandez u. State, 726 S.bJ.2d 53, 55 (Tex.
Grim. App. 19fi6)(9U 7 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). A reasonijble probability
in this context, ms- bat there is sufficient probability "to undermine
confidence in th-i outcome" of the trial. Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at
694). Applicant presents three areas where trial counsel uas ineffective. Trial
counsel was invited to respond to each allegation. See Exhibit A.
A. Fai.lurs to conduct an indapendent investigation.
Applicant's trial counsal, Mr. Antonio Simenez III, failed to conduct an
adequate pretrial investigation, thus failing to subject the proaecution's case
to meaningful adversarial testing, "It is fundamental that an attorney must
have a firm command of the facts of the case as well as the law before he can
render rsaaonably effective asaistance of counsel...A natural consequence of
this notion is that counsel also has a rnaponaiLility to seek out and interview
-4-
potential uitnesses and failure to do sc is to be ineffective, if not incompetent,
r
uihere the result is that any viable defense available to the accused is not
advanced." Ex parta Lilly, 656 S.U.2d L9n, L93; 1903 Tex.Crim.App.LEXIS 1155;
see also Compton v. State, 202 S.lil.3d 416, 419 (Tex.App.—Tyler 2Q06). Specifically,
counsel failed to conduct an investigation in order to subject the prosecution's
case to meaningful adversarial testing. When the foundation of the prosecution's
case is based upon circumstantial evidence, rebuttal evidence and exposing
discrepancies in "cover officer's" testimony are paramount to staging any viable
defense. Mr, Jimenez's ineffectiveness falls into three broad categories; failure
to subject circumstantial evidence to meaningful cross-examination, failure to
introduce evidence and providing erroneous legal advice.
In order to secure a conviction for driving uhile intoxicated, the prosecution
must prove six elements of the charge: (1) a parson; (2) is intoxicated; (3) at
the time of; (4) opsrating; (S) a motor vehicle; (6) in a public place. Bee UTCA,
Penal Code &49.D4(8); Chaloupka v. State, 20 S.IJ.3d 172, pet. for discretionary
reviauj refused (Tex.App.—Waco 1999). Instejid of establishing each element of
the charge, the prosecution has utilized circumstantial evidence and shoddy
testimony to supoort its cuoe. Mindful that circumstantial evidence can be used
to support a conviction, it is not carte blanche to forego empirical evidence
or tha lack thereof. See Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.U.3d 460 (necessitating a
temporal link hetueen the time of the accident and arrival of the officers at
the scene). Beyond circumstantial evidence, the prosecution never established
Applicant exercised control over or operated the motor vehicle. The prosecution,
instead, utilizes suspect testimony upon which to base its case-in-chief.
-5-
Specifically, officers guesstimate the time of the accident. Officer
Floras, one of the last officers to arrive at the scene submitted the crash
raport and presented the following testimony upon cross-examination by Mr.
Oimenez:
Q: (By Mr. Oimenez) Officer, do you know when the aec-idant actually
occurred?
A: As far as like, the exact time?
Q: Time sequence.
A; The time I put on my report was 3:32, so I will probably say you'Id. Moreover, a ruling on that mobion 'uould have changed the outcome of
the case. This was a prrrecutinn for D'H; s31 of the tsstimony nrd evidence
used to establish the intoxicatinn element of the offense uno a direct product
•f the initial arrest. Uithout evidance obtained from the arrest, the Stcte
would not have secured its conviction.
Certainly, the outcoms of the trial would have been different had trial
counsel pursued the pretriel motion to suppress evidence. ' bocauss the
pretrial rnotian would hcvc dstcrriined the outcnme of the jii Applicant's
favor, there can be no strategic roasona for failing to pur;.:.
A^iditionally, trial counsel failed'to pursue a Motion for t.pesdy TrjaL.
See Section No. UII.
C. Failure to command facts of caaa of J'P/'fCprjdtfi-'y advise client.
In a vain related to ground A, trial counsel failed to command facts
relevant to his client's case or advise him appropriately. More specifically,
-10-
the Friday before trial, Mr. Jimenez informed Applicant that the State made an
offer for time served in exchange for a plea of guilty in person at the Dexar
County Adult Detention Center. Ha further recommsnded that Applicant accept
the plea agreement since ha could be sentenced to upuards of two years'
confinement. Counsel's advice was a flagrant misreprssentation of applicable,
statutory Ism, Ths above-reteranced class B misdemeanor carries a statutory,
maximum sentence of" one-hundred and eighty (1BD) oays' confinement in tha
county jail. See Vernon's Texae Penal Code §§A-9.QA-(b) and 12.22(2). "Counsel's
representation mas beiou en objective standard of reasonableness. There is no
evidence of hie consulting the statute." sea Ex parts Battle, 817 H.bl.Sd 81,
8'^. Said advicn r fleets a failure of trial counsel to prepare for trial and
command a firm g-"- "the facts of the case as uell as ths law. See Diaz v.
State, 905 j 307 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1995). Pecuniary interests
may have influenced Mr. Jimenez's judgmsnt.
Initially, Mr. Jimenez mas paid a tyo-thousand five hundred (2,500)
dollar retainer fee with a verbal agreement for further payment dependant upon
the course of the case. Unfortunately, Applicant mas arrested the folloiiiing day
and unable tci make further payments. Mr. Jimenez uas asked by Applicant to
uithdr^w from his case if payment, or lack thereof, created conflict. Trial
counsel did not mithdraui and contacted Applicant's elderly parents requesting
payment. Mr. Jimenez mas not compenHuted beyond ths initial retainer fee for
his sarvicBs. Thus, decisions not to prepare, nor appropriately advise his
client mas not a "'strategic' decision, it mas an economic one." See Ex parte
Brigge, 137 fi.W.Jd A5H, HG7(Tex.Crj.m.App. 2005). Mr. Jlmsnaz manted to avoid a
trial for mhich ha mould not taa compensated. He has gone to ths extent of
misrepresBnting statutory law to do so.
-11-
D. Failure to advocate on Applicant's behalf undermining the adversarial
prucese.
Trial counssl'a acLions bsfors, during ancj aftar trini roflsct an
abandonment of the adversarial procass canatitutincj a denial uf due prticeus.
"L'han one nida i;i unuililnt) ir Ulil-keiv to advocacc cm hs.half of hie client
thsrs i& no reason to expect the other side to bs willing to rariucs uhatever
adversarial advantage it may already have. Hencs uithout effort on the part
of the appellant's attorney to sack pcssihle flows in the State's case, the
prosecutor uould not be oersueded to seek less than the asking pries, which in
most Cases exceeds t!ia actual value of the cauu." ciec Mitchell v. State, 762
'"16, 'jZh (Tex.Apt'.—'an Antonio 1969). l>o dencnstrntao by ouhsucction 6,
trial counsel failed to pursue several pretrial motions that poasossod the
putantial to change tije outcoms of ths trial. The CSSQ against Applicant
consistod of four witnesses for the prosecution versus ahsDlutely none for the
dafenau. The prosecution uubniittcjd three exhibits into the record iiiithoiit a
single objection from counsel for the derense. See A RR and 7v.
Two specific instance? reflect abnndonment of duty -. li. One, during
nis testimony, Officer Mel interjected the tlamaging charactemlion that
Applicant had a very arrogant stance abcct himoslf, to which iir. Dimsnez did
not object, 3 RR 57. The interjection of this subjective speculation cast a
negative light upon Applicant's character before the jury. Defense counsel
allowed thw prosecution, through its witnesses, to lanei Applicant creating a
backdrop for framing the jury's attitude towards this case. Once emocionally
charged connotations are attached to the proceedings, legal standards are
-12-
replacsd by s;iiotj.an£il onsa. Tha C3n'te>;t uf ths trial is shiftad frDm oriB based
apan the lau ta ana based upan stations. MeedlSoS to say, aubjsctive
charactsrizations mur.t be res trained to cantext and not ailowad to parmsats the
trial procsedintjs uhich happened in this case.
Sacandly, nfficsr Bandela testifiad that Applicant was not Mira.idizsd
until r.rz-t- lie was planed in ir^ndn'.if fs and cndar vvrt-Gt. V RR 12, Ti'Jc, any
vidsn ruafcaga or dialogue UAth officer's bnfore th'.:t point (usiiicn is tn..'
r.iEjority of the i/idsu) is inadmissible before the jury. This footage in the
singl'2 most damaging evidance introducad liy tha prosacution. Its admission
constitutes a violation of Applicant's Fifth Amendment rignt against salr-
incriiiiination.
Instead of ting aupprasaion, fir. dinanez abfuscates the time tha
Miranda rights wert - ;:i. Despite, testimony stating that the Miranda righti-.
utru rand after thn colloquy bntujean Applicant and officoro, Mr. Jimenez
argiias for its incorporation into the recnrr) aa a "Volj.ntary" admission. ^ RR
In a striking role revarsal, defense counsel ceases to be an advocate for
the defense and joins forces with the prosecution. Thsrs cannot possibly be
any strategic reason for couns.nl's action.
[•lith no adversarial challenge by defanae, thore is no rBSSonable
Expetation for the prosecution to check itsslf. In the procaas, evidence to
the contrary is glossed over and unCDnstitutional methods irnplementied to secure
s conviction. "If counnsl fails to subject the prosecution's caso to meaningful
adversarial testing, than there has been a denial of Sixth Amendment rights
that makes the adversary process itself prsBumptively unreliablK." See Mitchell,
n. 1 at 32't (quoting United States u* Cronic, kftG U.S. at 652, S.Ct. at
-13-
2407). Thun, the tricl rifiultt art not raliabie duo to a iirsak ciauin in tha
advnrsf.rial procssa.
UI. Diaproportionatf! puniahmsnt.
"ppX:.aant has hn:!."\ to orue]. and unusiioj. p-iniDhmant in the
far-n of dsliborate indiffsrancs and dispraportionata puniahmant undar tha Eighth
and Fourteenth AtnendmentB to tha United Ststfcil Constitution. Specifically,
pretrial detention for three huncrr.d ani eljhty (300) days as a result of a
class 3 misdemeanor aualting trial constitutes punishment disproportionate to
the statutcrily, mandated myximum punishment. Oee Texas Penal Code §§49.Q4{b)
and 1 ?.?.2{2) (punishment fui' drivin'; •.ihil;': i.nt3xiOGtnrl, nla? . j nlsdrmaanci, sot
at confinsiiiunt in tnn county jail not to exceed one nundrari and Eighty days).
Applicant was chargad uith the class 3 iiiisdestnnanor, driving uhile
intoxicated on May 24th, 2012. That day, ho uas released on Pond. On May 2;5th,
he uias arrested on a pra-rcuocation uarrant issued ny the Texas Deparliiiant uf
Crrminai Ousticn—Pardons and Paroles Division [Parole Div .un]. 3aj.d warrant
preclj.lad hand. As a result, Applicant jould rernain incar ' until the
resolution J.3d 189, 19A (Tex.Grim.App. 2010). The best evidence
of a national consensus with respect to the appropriateness of a particular
punishment for a particular offense is the legislation enacted by the nation's
legislature.-id. In this specific instance, legislation set the appropriate
punishment at a term of confinement in the county jail, not to exceed one hundred
and eighty days," Bee Tex. Pen. Code §12.22(2).
UXI. Violation of dua process.
Applicant's due process rights uers contravened by punishment prior to
trial. "A ctetainae may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in
accordance with due process of law." Ball v. bJolfiah, 99 S. Ct. 1361 , 1396 (197,).
-15-
Applicant petitioned the Parole Division and Court requesting the pre-revocation
warrant be lifted or the misdemeanor adjudicatfid, respectively. Neither party
provided Applicant with relief. This inaction serves as a warning to others who
may consider exercising fundamental constitutional rights to proceed with
caution.
"The inevitable effect of any such provision is, of course, to discourage
assertion of the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and to deter exercise
of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial. If the provision had no
other purpose or effect than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights
by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it would be patently
unconstitutional." Gregg v. Georgia, i»2fi U.S. 15.1, 193, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 2935 (1976)
Applicant exercised hie Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and has been penalized
for doing so. "A person on parole for one crime who is arrestad for a second
crime cannot be punished for the commission of the second crime until he is
found guilty of the commission of the second crime." Hamilton v, Lynns, 7A
F.3d 99, 104. The extended imposition of a blue warrant precluding bond has
unequivocQbly punished and discouraged the exercise of fundamental rights
without legitimate counterbalancing penological goals, punishtfiQ Applicant
PRIOR to trial. There is no way around the injury to Applicant due to disregard
for constitutional tenets.
UIII. Spaedy trial violation.
Applicant has been denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a
speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as extended
-16-
to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the criminally
accused the right to a speedy trial. See State v. Rangel, 980 S.U.Zd SAO, 943
(Tex.App.—San Antonio 1990). Similarly, the Texas Constitution guarantees the
right to a speedy trial. Tax.Const.art. I, §10."-id. Applicant spent fourteen
(14) months' in the Bexar County Adult Detention Center before his misdemeanor
trial. Paradoxically, the misdemeanor pending against him carried a maximum,
statutory punishment of six (fa) months' confinement in the county jail. See
Settrom U and UI; see also Texas Penal Code §§49.D4(b) and 12.22(2).
The reviewing court must balance four factors when analyzing the grant
or denial of a speedy trial claim. "The factors are: (1) length of the delay;
(2) reason for the delay; (3) assertion of the right; and (4) prejudice to the
accused." Stock v. State, 214 S.lil.3d 761, 764 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007)(quoting
Barker v. Uingo, 4Q7 U.S. 514, 53D, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed,2d 101 (1972)).
In this casa, the delay was fourteen (14) months. Applicant understood
the delay to be due to a crowded docket, in part. "Upon a finding that a
presumptively prejudicial delay has occurred, the State bears the initial
burden of justifying the delay." Rangel, at 843. The primary burden is on the
State and the trial courts to ensure that defendants are afforded their right
to a speedy trial. See CR 1D-12, Ground I or Section U. Counsel for defense
failed to pursue these motions. The final factor, or prejudice, is inherent
with continued pretrial detention. All four factors are met by Applicant's
causa for relief. Relief under this ground calls for reversal of the above
referenced cause and dismissal with prejudice. See Stock; see also State v.
Guerrero, 110 S.W.3d 155 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2003).
-17-
Prayer
Uherafore, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant reapectfully prays that this
hcnorabia Court set asids the final judgment and sentence in the abovB-referencBd
cause and order the conviction for Cause No. kZlZ\52 void and null. Applicant
also prays for any other relief that this Court defints equitable and necessary.
Respectfully,
C
Beni^l Elias
Benj^in
TDCI-ID No. 819778
Q.B.Ellis Unit
1697 FH 9BQ
Huntsville, Texas 773A.3.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Benjamin Elias, Applicant, pro ae, hereby certify that a true and correct
COPY o"'' "the foregoing Applicant's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, has
been foruarded to the District Attorney of Bexar County, Criminal Justice
Center, 101 U. Nueva, San Antonio, Texas 73207 via United States Postal Service,
first-class mail, postage prepaid.
Executed on this the IQtK day of Hay 2D17.
Benjamin Elias, pro3b
—1B—
APPENDIX
1) EXHIBIT A
Letter dated April 28, 2D17 to Mr. Oimanez for adaptive admissions (3 pages)
2) EXHIBIT B
Calls for Service to the San Antonio Police Department for May ZA-th, 2013
(3 pages)
-19-
exhibit a
-2P-
April 28. 2017
Mr. Antonio 3imenez III
Attorney and Counselor at Law
2^k Didyar, fruibe 315
San Antonio, Texas 7B2D4
State liar fio. 1D566Pnn.
RE: T!ia S"l.3t" Tny??" v. tlia.-; Crtnoa lla, ?r27C5l-.'; iGth County Court
of Law, ijfiv.ar County, Tsxaa.
DEAK mi:. CIMENEZ:
Moiio. riie reason for tnis letter is to foriflslly invite you to respond to
claims aoaitad in a writ uf haaoiis corous, please take the time to rsvieu the
foliowiny latt.-ir Oiiu re a pond appropriately,
(.In March 2Gth, DeujaF.in Eiias retained your prafassionial assistance
in the ohovs styled cause anc parole prooaQdings uith the poymsrit of a tuenty-
fivD hUruired {ZjSiiiJ) 'Jollar rfitarricr fee. hU liacl a cl.iss '? misdar.ieanor tor
driving uni.!..j int.oxit:nt;ii;l (uliii) crsrya pending and parola issues for .an
unreierad uhgr^i::.
f.in March f.jtl'i, ilr. cliaa wiaa arrostar, on a iire-revucation warrant and
C(3nfini;:J to the Baxar Ceurjty A.duJ.t Detention [.enter where ha would reMu.in until
the adjudication of this casa. Un juns lA-th-13th, 2u1A, a jury trial wo:-
coniiuctae. Tiiu jury lound hi"; c-u-lny nf uKo charge tnd the judge ^epr.cinceci him
to six nonths' confinaiuBnt and a tuo-thuuaand (2,CUD) dollar fine, jurigment
aatisfieo.
Direct appeal was Made to the Fourth uciuri ar .nppaois vor Faxas. fhe eele
ground for relief was ineffectivs assistance of counae.!. Due to an "undardevelopsd
record," the appellate court affirmed the trlBl c.iurt'fi rleclsion. A patiLion Fa.r
-1-
discretionary revisij ujas aubnaoLiinni-Jy filec with thtj Court of Criminal Appaals
and refused. Noui, a urit of habeas carpus has been prepared and is ready for
aubmissinn. The majority of the grounds listed in that writ refer to your
pgrfornisr.cs before, and at trial. Please rsvieu the folloiiiing questions and
raspcin:; t-n in turn:
1 . t'Jhat t-jris yo'.ir r'-oson for rot C'^niluciing on inbepandent investigation
of the prosecutior s case?
2. Hh~t uan vnur rnason for net withurawiny ['rom this case uihen asked
to do 80 by your client due to inattention?
3. Ii'hst ir VDi £ rr:ag'.;n fnr iufusiny "to surrsndor Mr. Elies' client file?
4. liinat was your reason for filing a pre-trial motion tc suopress and
not obtaininn, a rulinr, upon 5.I.?
5. tihaa was your strategy in having your client ait in the county jail
for nvar s year on a charge that uerri?"', 3 maximum punishment of
six months?
6. Iilhat uiSo your reason for not atlvuca h.'.ng a ir.oTian far speedy Uciai?
7. What was your reason for nor having command of the statutes qnverning
ycur r.-Uerit's cnro?
3. What was your reason for advising Mi'. Elias that he could be sentenced
for upuiards of two years' cmfinentent for a class B misdemaanar when,
by statute, the maximum punishment is six months' confinement?
9. What UBS your ntrntagy in not abjrv.tinij r.i •-ntnps5?'3 ns'ssti've
chsracterization of your client?
10. What Mas 'your "tratagy uilien 'jrouini: in i'L'jDi' of tne inciusinri of
dash camera video footage instead of against it?
-2-
11. What UBS your strategy iti not pi>?P«ri.nn for trial nor subjecting
the prcsscution's case to apprupriatt: advsraarxai ujo iiig
Mr. you are not obligateti to veshu:;J t. .-us la.t.::. Iv y^-u choose not
to re.-one, -t u.iU be presuneti that you hau no reason ur trial etretegy foi
ennaging in thi? actitin:; rin.-ii-jrj.i'cij .• rv.'v- •
Further, tria -"lalulao
Ilanaa, Ccrp.. pursuant to Taxaa Rulaa nf Evldanca. BM (e)(2)C®).
•1 J..— F—nin i-hr' O-^+e nf triLf iliailiny , out /Oli a.'.a
he subrr.itted in sevar cpl^nHuv ^r.yir rrnn i,p - . .
ualcomsd to respond ercer this time if need ma.
Thnnv /on ir : fnr yont '.nt', con-siter^tion ..if thu- ^neU^r.
r.'-i.-'e'; tfully,
c:
BBn^amin Elias
TncC?-!?* '<0. bl:''V73
O.B. Ellis Unit
FM 931}
Huntsvills, Texas llZWi,
nPHTlFICATE OF SERV/ICE
I, BBnlamln Ellas, heraby cattlfv that atrua and carract copy of tha ahnva
raquast far adcptlya adaiaslona has baan aubmittad tn hr. Antonio 31manaz HI.
B1A Dpyar. duita 315. Ban Antonio. Ta«a, 7BBGA yla Unltad Stataa Postal Saryioa.
first oiasa aall. oartiflad, raturn-reoaipt rapuastad on this tha IBth day of
April 2B17. Return Rocelpt Raquestad No. 701 a1710 0000 AOfiO
Benj'ftmin Elias
-3-
EXHIBIT B
Select Language T
(http://www.sananlonlo.90v1'Home.aspx)
CYOim GOVEgEMT ) (G^UQHiljECTED^
;AN ANTONIO POLICEDEPARTMENT
o.GovHomo (/) > SAPD (hllp/Avww.$ananlonio.gov/SAPD.aspx) > Calls (or Service (hllp-/Avww.Bonanlonio.gov;SAPO'Call8.osp*)
:ALLS FOR SERVICE
Export To PDF ( Export To Excel | | New Search [
ri::rcf?" crit£"ia
Start Dale: 05.'24.'2013 CndDale: 05r24'2013
Zipcode; 78238 Dispatch Problem Catogory: TiafflcCalls
COiincil District: - School DIsliicI:
Horn eowner Association:
ZZ CALLS FOR SERVICE RETURNED
JriCIUIiNt Cf.TeCOnr fROBLFM r-i-pt; Rfi.'iJ'l.WREOAfi; AnrjatS;. SGHQCIL COUNCIL
OiSTRICT DISTRICT
SHtitBSn
SAPD-2013- Traffic Related 5-24/2013 5900-S9B8 0«:HANGE PKWY North Side
0464642 12:1321 AM ISD
5/24/2013 BANDERA RD / NW LOOP 410 North Side
S4PD-2013-
125825AM ISD
04B4743
SAPD-2013- Major Accident 5/24-2013 2800 Cinema Rdg Thtinderbird North Side
1:27:49 AM Hills ISD
0484809
Traffic Relslcd 5/24/2013 WB NW LP 410 OFRP EXCHANI^ PY North Side
SAPD-2013-
2:0226 AM ISD
04B4880
Traffic Related 5/24/2013 7032-7076 NW LOOP410 EB Nonh Side
SAPD-2013-
2:49:4/ AM LSD
0484965
Traffic Related 5/24.-2013 5900-5985 EXCHANGE PKWY North Side
SAPD-2013-
2:53:35 AM ISD
048496S
Mriur Accident 5/24/2013 Nw Loop 410 / Exchange Pxwy Norlt) Side
SAPD-2013-
3:32:39 AM ISD
0485013
Minor Accident 5/24/2013 Nw Loop 410 Wb /WjNw Lp410Ofrp Norm Side
SAPD-2013-
3:32:50 AM Bondora Rd ISD
0485014
SAPD-2013- Traffic Related 5/24/2013 Nw Loop410 Wb/Ciilebra Rd North Side
1152:42 AM ISD
046S916
SAPD-2013- Abandoned 5-24/2013 6000 Seacroff Dr
Copyright @2013 City of San Antonio
ADAComprrance(/aeUO I Telecommuting (/easU) | SHe Map(/websitemapa9px) | Open Records (topenQOvemmenU) | Cordact Ife (/conUctfl |
Privacy Policy and Disclaimer (Idisclaimor.aspx)
City of San Antonio
San Antonio Police Department Caiis For Service Report
Report Generated: 7/14/2014 12:45:53PM
Start Date: 05/24/2013 End Date: 05/24/2013
ZIpcode: 78238 Dispatch Problem Category; Traffic Calls
Council District: School District;
Homeowner Association:
RECORDS RETURNED:
Incident Number Category ProbiemType Response Date Address HOA Name. SchoolDlstrict Council Zipcode
District
SAPD-2013-0484642 Traffic Calls Traffic Related 5/24/2013 0:13:21 5900-5985 EXCHANGE North Side 78238
PKWY ISD
SAPD-2013-0484743 Traffic Calls DWI 5/24/2013 0:58:25 BANDERA RD / NW North Side 78238
LOOP 410 ISO
SAPD-2013-0484809 Traffic Calls Major Accident 5/24/2013 1:27:49 2800 Cinema Rdg IThunderbird Hills North Side 78238
ISD
SAPD-2013-0484880 Traffic Calls Traffic Related 5/24/2013 2:02:26 WBNWLP410OFRP North Side 78238
EXCHANGE PY ISD
SAPD-2013-0484965 Traffic Calls Traffic Related 5/24/2013 2:49:47 7032-7076 NW LOOP 410 North Side 78238
EE ISD
SAPD-2013-0484968 Traffic Calls Traffic Related 5/24/2013 2:53:35 5900-5985 E'iCHANGE North Side 78238
PKWY ISD
SAPD-2013-0485013 Traffic Calls Minor Accident 5/24/2013 3:32:39 Nw Loop 410' Exchange North Side 78238
Pkwv ISD
SAPD-2013-0485014 Traffic Calls Minor Accident 5/24/2013 3:32:50 Nw Loop 410 Wb / Wb Nw North Side 78238
Ld 410 Ofro Bandera Rd ISD
SAPD-2013-0485918 Traffic Calls Traffic Related 5/24/2013 11:52:42 Nw Loop 410 Wb / Culebra North Side 78238
Rd ISD
SAPD-2013-0486803 Traffic Calls Abandoned 5/24/2013 15:41:47 6000 Seacroft Or North Side 78238
Vehicle ISD
:SAPD-2013-0486866 i Traffic Calls Traffic Related 5/24/2013 16:00:57 Callaghan Rc / Culebra Rd North Side 78238
1
ISD
SAPD-2013-0487008 i Traffic Calls Minor Accident 5/24/2013 16:41:27 Nw Loop 410 Wb / Ingram North Side 78238
Rd ISD
SAPD-2013-0487011 ,Traffic Calls Major Accident 5/24/2013 16:42:19 Nw Loop 410 / Ingram Rd North Side 78238
ISD
SAPD-2013-0487203 1Traffic Calls Minor Accident 5/24/2013 17:37:40 Nw Loop 410 / Culebra Rd North Side 78238
ISD
Intident Number I Category ProblemType I Response Date Address HOAName SchootDlstrict Council Zlpcode*|
I' District
SAPD.2013-0487267 Traffic Calls Minor Accident 5/24/2013 17:58:42 6300 Nw Loop 410 North Side 78238
ISD
SAPD-2013-0487540 Traffic Calls Traffic Related 5/24/2013 19:08:54 Nw Loop 410Ingram Rd North Side 78238
ISO
SAPD-2013-0487575 Traffic Calls Minor Accident 5/24/2013 19:20:06 Nw Loop 410 s/Vb/ North Side 78238
Bandera Rd ISD
SAPD-2013-0487631 Traffic Calls 5/24/2013 19:34:44 ALAMO DQV/NSPKWY/ North Side 78238
NW LOOP 410 ISD
SAPD-2013-0487640 Traffic Calls Minor Accident 5/24/2013 19:38:37 5900 Bandera Rd North Side 78238
ISD
SAPD-2013-0487790 Traffic Calls DWI 5/24/2013 20:26:10 Nw Loop 410 Wb / Culebra North Side 78238
Rd ISD
SAPD-2013-0488037 Traffic Calls Traffic Related 5/24/2013 21:53:48 Nw Loop 410 Wb / Culebra North Side 78238
Rd ISD
SAPD-2013-0488095 Traffic Calls Accident Private 5/24/2013 22:14:39 Still Brook / Timberhill Dr North Side 78238
Prooertv ISD
SAPO-2013-0488237 Traffic Calls Minor Accident 5/24/2013 23:08:19 Ingram Rd / Nw Loop 410 North Side 78238
Wb ISD
EXHIBIT 2
38
July 31. 2017
Hon. Judge Scott Roberts
Presiding Judge
County Court 12
300 Dolorosa, 2nd Floor
San Antonio, TX. 78205.
RE: Trial Cause: The State of Texas v. Benjamin Elias;
Trial Cause No.: 427052;
Urit: Ex parte Benjamin Elias;
Writ No.: 2704.
DEAR JUDGE ROBERTS:
GREETINGS. The reason for this letter is to inquire as to the status of
the above-referenced cause. Please advise me appropriately regarding this matter.
Should you have any questiphs or need additional information, do not
hesitate to contact me at the address listed belou. Thank you in advance for
your time and consideration of this matter.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Elias, pro se
TDCJ-ID No. B1977B
D.B. Ellis Unit
1697 FM 9B0
Huntsville, TX.77343.
Certified Hail Return Receipt No. 7013 1710 0001 0996 B454.
cc.: file.
First-Class Merl
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
'=!5qa l^aE gtf^l t30b ijb
United States • Sender; Piease print yourname, address, and 2IP+4® in Itiis box*
Postal Service
fc|OtpnfV\ €|[AI
S TDcT'Xi?
- o e.Ellis llnH tO-|2-2G)
, 1M7 fIViqsO
H^n-bvi'lle, k) - i- ;
Restricted Dellvety Fee
(Endorsement Required)
^5^
Total Postage S Fees $ IS I • V
...
\'afy.siaio.ZP*4
I
t?OLOj205A f" aJflOOfl—
AKnON\0.J^)(AS l9y20S \
SENDER: C0MPiCTE7H/SSECW0W, ,;;;\: rv!;X'; -^MPt£rE miS SECTION ON DEUVERYsy ^
Printyoui^nirrieafTd.aa'dress.on.the reverse
•ISO ibatiwexan retijrnXrie Sard to .you; •.>• '-•.
-Attach trils'-card to the back of the mailpiece. .©^Boceivedby'fPn/jreiJNdme,) - C.iJsfieofpelW^"
•oron the front ifspacejJermits.- , , .
tAtIicIG Addressed to: 0. :lsdelivery address diffe^t from* item 17 '^3 ^es^
. IfVES.^enier dGliuetv'addrfess'lietdw;' . •-No "r
•Prei-jcli nt)^v{j(ae
^r)h Gyrt
.'300-:ft|oroSc\,'2nc( .flooir
r'Wj-iuOjO^
MB