Juan Miguel Mata v. Maria Elena Mata

JUAN MIGUEL MATA # 1732873
MCCONNELL UNIT
3001 S. EMILY DR.
BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102
August 27,2015
COURTS OF APPEAL
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
ATT: HONORABLE KEITH HOTTLE: CHIEF CLERK
CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER
300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200
SAN ANTONIO, TX. 78205-3037
RE: TRIAL NO: 2714
COURT OF APPEALS NO: 04-15-00366-CV
STYLE: MARIA ELENA MATA
V.
JUAN MIGUEL MATA
Dear Honorable Hottle;
Please accept the enclosed foregoing instrument of Appellant Brief. Could
you file these document and docket them, bringing them to the attention of the
Honorable Court-
Before filing these brief could you, please attach a copy of all the appendixes
filed in the previous proceeding of a Writ of Mandamus No. 04-15-00214-CV- I
have cross reference everything from these number to these appeal no. 04-15-00366-CV.
A copy of the same has been forwarded; Hand delivered to the attorney at
record, County Attorney Daniel Gonzalez, for Maria Elena Hata.
My apology for the inconvenience if any about attaching copies that have
been filed in the Writ of Mandamus. Your valuable time and consideration is
greatly appreciated, if you have any questions or information, please do not
hestitace to contact me at the above address.
Sincerely;
MIGUEL MATA # 1732873
APPELLANT: PRO SE
ENCLOSURE: APPELLANT BRIEF
APPENDIX (copy of the ORDER)
COPY OF NOTICE OF INTENT w/ MOTION TO SIGN ORDER
COPY OF DECLARATION TO INABILITY TO PAY ANY COST
cc; FILE
DANIEL GONZALEZ: DIMMIT COUNTY ATTORNEY & ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT MARIA ELENA MATA
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS: SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
TRIAL NO. 2714
APPEAL NO. 04-15-00366-CV
TO THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
COURTS OF APPEALS DISTRICT
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
********************
IN THE MATTER OF
JUAN MIGUEL MAT*- APPELLANT
VERSUS
MARIA ELENA MATA-APPELLEE
********************
BRIEF FOR
AN APPEAL
[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED]
rAPPELLANT/ ?RO SE
Me. CONNELL UNIT
3001 S. EMILY DR.
BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102-8696
IDENTITIES OP THE PARTIES
JUAN MIGUEL MATA- - APPELLANT
TDCJ-ID # 1732873
Me. CONNELL UNIT
3001 S. EMILY DR.
BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102
MARIA ELENA FRAZIER f-k.a- APPELLE
MARIA ELENA MATA
P.O. BOX 344
BURLEY/ IDAHO 83318
DIMMIT COUNTY COURTHOUSE- - ATTORNEY FOR APPELLE
c/o DANIEL GONZALE2; COUNTY ATTORNEY
103 NORTH 5th STREET
CARRIZO SPRINGS, TEXAS 78834
-2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITIES OF PARTIES page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS page 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES page 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE page 6
ANY STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUEMENT page 7
ISSUES PRESENTED page 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS page 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENT page 12
ARGUEMENT page 13
PRAYER page 18
./^-.'i-i- page 19
-3-
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
AUTHORITIES PAGES
1. Cooke v. Cooke (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001) 13
65 S.W. 3d 7852. In Re Cummings (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000) 14
13 S.W. 3d 4723- James v. Hubbard (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998) 14
985 S.W. 2d 5164. Pena v. Garza (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2001) 13
61 S.W. 3d 5295. Striedel v. Striedel (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2000) 14
15 S.W. 3d 1636. Williams v. Williams (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000) 14
19 S.W. 3d 5447- Vongontard v. Tippit (App. 1 Dist. 2004) 11
137 S.W. 3d 1098. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 8/10
Article 5.05
9- Texas Civil Practice and Remedies 8/10
Section 16.064
10. Texas Family Code 12
Section 71.004
11. Texas Family Code 8/11,13
Section 81.001
12. Texas Family Code 6
Section 81.009
13. Texas Family Code 8/11/13
Section 82.002
14. Texas Family Code 8/11/13
Section 85.001
15. Texas Family Code 6/8
Section 85.025(b)
16. Texas Family Code 10
Section 87.001
17. Texas Family Code 10
Section 105.001
-4-
AUTHORITIES PAGE #
18. Texas Family Code 6/8
Title 4
19. Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 13
Rule 52 (a)
20. United States Constitution 9
14th Amendment
-5-
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant, Juan Miguel Mata seeks an appeal, on qrounds that this Protective
Order No- 2714/ is not in accordance to Tex. Fam. Statutes/ Title 4. Appellant
agreed to this protective order, on insunations of the judge presiding in Dimmit
County Court. The trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to properly
apply the law to the undisputed facts, when it acts arbitrarity or unreasonably/
or when its ruling is based on factual assertions unsupported by the record.
Appellant NO longer AGREES. Appellant has sought review through properly filed
motions by a third party servicing them to the County Clerks' Office/ as follows
are motions filed/ Motion to Modify, Motion to Quash, Motion to Examine Evidence,
Motion to Object, Motion to Sign Orders, and Motion to Appeal. The trial court
has acted bias toward the Appellant and has neglected the Honorable Francisco G.
Ponce ministerial duties to rule and make a just determination, so therefore
Appellant desires to enter this appeal pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 81.009, for
purposes of this ORDER be review, upon a hearing pursuant to § 85.025(b): Tex.
Fam. Code.
Appellant has filed a Writ of Mandamus in these Honorable Court in where
Honorable Francisco G- Ponce voluntary recusal himself, and this Writ of Mandamus
is currently active under Court of Appeal No. 04-15-00214-CV. Please see files
for APPENDIXES cross reference to the references mentioned in this BRIEF.
-6-
ANY STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellant objects to oral argument to be permitted. Protective Order No.
2714 can be clearly and evidently seen that NO family violence was found in the
trial courts1 findings/ upon the State presenting the Application to the Dimmit
County Court. Evidence can be seen on page 2 of the ORDER/ where the trial
judqe scratched out the markinq [X] that was presented by the Appellees'
Attorney/ and can be compare to the signing of the presidinq iudge on page 6 to
page 2 initials. Please see Appendix "A"/ Id. pg 2, 6.
No attachments were made by the Dimmit County Attorney at time of present
ing evidence. To be more precise/ NO REPORTS and or RECORDS were presented/ to
the trial court from a law enforcement agency to sustain any arqument from the
State/ therefore appellant on evidence that the State and trial court have
judicially neglected the desposition of all motions filed/ and has brought evid
ence to compel Honorable Francisco G. Ponce on a previous Writ of Mandamus No.
04-15-00214-CV. Appellants' confinement impairs the opportunity to be presently
present on any oral argument/ and appellant feels if oral arqument is allowed;
by any electronic communication would not be as effective to present and have
a fair hearinq/ and cross examine any witness.
-7-
ISSUE PRESENTED
Appellee's attorney has Exercise Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction pursuant
to §16-064; Tex. Civ. Prac and Rem. Appellee is a non-resident of the State
of Texas since May 19/2014/ Please see Appendix "J", defined as a Sworn Declar
ation to be a resident of the State of Idaho. Appellees' attorney entered a
Motion to Extend/ exercising jurisdiction over non-resident on Seotember 16/2014/
and the Honorable Judqe Francisco G. Ponce exercise conflict of interest by
hearinq this action and siqninq ORDER/ despite that his Son Michael A. Ponce had
been attorney of record on Appendix "K", also please see Appendix "B".
Appellee's attorney did not entered evidence as described on Tex. Code of
Crim. P./ Article 5.05/ to support Appelle alleqations filed on a separate
sheet to these application of a protective order.
Trial Court VIOLATED Tex. Fam. Statutes/ Title 4, where NO Family Violence
was found in the trial courts' Findings/ and issued an ORDER aqainst the Texas
statutes, so therefore these ORDER is in VIOLATION to the followinq statutes;
Tex. Fam. Code §81.001, which clearly states, " A court SHALL render a Protect
ive Order as provided by Tex. Fam. Code §85.001/ states IF the court FINDS that
Family Violence has Occurred and is likely to Occur in the future." Pursuant to
Tex. Fam. Code §82.002/ entitled "Who May File Application."
Trial Court has judicially neglected all his ministerial duties on not
rendering a desposition on the motions properly filed with the Dimmit Countv
Clerk/ and upon his discretion of issuinq these ORDER, the coutt has altered the
statutes prescribed within the law. In accordance to Tex. Fam. Code §85-025(b);
states that "a person who is subject of a protective order may file a motion not
earlier than the first anniversary of the date on which the ORDER was rendered
requestinq that the court review—". The trial court has intentionally VIOLATED
Appellants' constitutional riqhts by not reviewinq these ORDER on properly filed
-8-
motion. Please see Appendix "E" and "G".
NO service of citation was ever served on ADpelant/ to oroDerlv inform
Aooellant in DUE PROCESS: 14th Amend.; U.S. Constitution of the application
for a Protective Order or the Extension of the ORDER. Please see Appendix
"B thru D".
-9-
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellant, Juan Miguel Mata/ appeals uoon change of conditions that Appel-
lee NO longer resides in the State of Texas. Please see Appendix "J", Applicants'
affidavit of residency of the State of Idaho, filed with Writ of Mandamus # 04-
15-00214'JCV and all foregoing appendixes here in mentioned in these brief. The
ADDelles' Attorney has exercised Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction pursuant to
§16.064; Tex. Civ. Prac and Rem. According to Tex Fam. Code § 85.005, states
a protective order expires on the date the ORDER is ordered to expire, please
see Appendix "B" and "C".
Appellant, Juan Miquel Mata, NO lonqer AGREES to the terms and has reauested
for a review. Appellant has entered a Motion to Modify with title Motion to
Amend with governing code, pursuant to §87.001; Tex. Fam. Code, on November 3,
2014, Dlease see Appendix "E". Appellant parent-child relationship has been
affected and is causinq alienation of love that the children would naturally
have for their natural father.
Appellant appeals in conjunction to the lack of reports, and records, in
accordance to Tex. Code of Crim. P.; Article 5.05, to demostrate clear and con
vincing evidence, that evidence was indeed entered to suooort the alleaations
made by the Appellee. Appellant has filed a Motion to Examine Rvidence in
reference to the allegations presented by Appellee throuqh the attornev of
record. In this Pro Se pleadinas, Appellant has reauested these reports and
records to be entered as evidence IF reports and records were made by a Law
Enforcement Agency as described in these statute, describing the events within
these Protective Order. Appellee stated NO Law Enforcement Reports and Records
were ever entered with the application, to applv for a protective order.
Appellant would like to examine such evidence to sustain this protective order
on allegations made by appellee, filed on a separate sheet with the application.
-10-
Appellant has respectfully requested such reports/ but no reports or records
have ever been rendered/ as preponderance of evidence. A motion has been filed
since November 3/2014, Dlease see Appendix "E" filed in Writ Brief # 04-15-00214-
CV in these Honorable Court. Appellant filed these motion in an omnibus motion
for the trial court to review and hear all evidence but Honorable Francisco G.
Ponce has refused to hear and review all evidence in his official capacity/ so
therefore Appellant appeals to these Honorable Court to review these ORDER and
OVERTURN the trial courts decision.
Appellant has entered also Motion to Object on February 10/2015/ pursuant
to §§81.001, 85-001 and §82.002;Tex. Fam. Code, entitled/ "Who May File Applicat
ion," please see appendix "G". The trial court FINDINGS state "NO Family Viol
ence has occurred or is likely to occur." Please See Appendix "A" on page 2.
Trial Court upon discretion of his official capacity/ signed the ORDER in
VIOLATION to Texas Family Statutes and Codes described herein.
Appellant appeals due to the party has filed Motion to Quash on qrounds
that these protective order is in VIOLATION to Texas Family Statutes described
herein, on February 10/2015, and previously had filed a motion on April 14/2015/
see Appendix "I"/ titled/ Motion to Appeal and Motion to Quash.
Appellant appeals pursuant to Vongontard v- Tippitt (App. 1 Dist. 2004),
137 S.W. 3d 109, in which these protective order is final, appealable due to
it disposes of all parties and issues in these case.
-11-
SUMMARY OF ARG0B1ENT
Appellant objects to Protective Order No. 2714 for not being in compliance
to the Texas statues/ the Rules of Procedure are general rules, while statues
are specific; thus* when the two conflict/ the statue trumps the rule. Pena v.
Garza, 61 S.W. 3d 529. Also for an applicant to be eligible for a protective
order/ under the guidelines of the code annotations and statues/ family violence
has occurred or is likely to occur. The disposition of this ORDER is in complete
judicial bias from the trial court because it does not follow the statues/ to
whom is entitled to such relief/ and who can apply. No family violence is found
in the trial courts findings as defined to^texas Family Section 71.004; as out
lined on page 2 of the ORDER/ so therefore this ORDER should be VOIDED or QUASH.
-12-
ARGUMENTS
Appellant presents these appeal seeking that ORDER No. 2714 be void on
arguments and evidence brought by the appellant. Protective Order is in
VIOLATION to statutes described in Tex. Pam. § 81.001, "Entitlement to Protect
ive Order", §85.001, "Required Findings and Orders", and § 82.002, "Who May File
Application". Within these ORDER NO FAMILY VIOLENCE has been found in the Court
Findings, as stated in the ORDER, page 2, under Subtitle, "FINDINGS", the mark
[X], the County Attorney presented as Family Violence Occurred; the trial judge
scratched over the mark [X] and placed the presiding judges intials. Alternat
ively, if ORDER will not be VOID, that the ORDER be modified pursuant to §87.001
(a); Tex. Fam. Code and natural, biological children of the Appellant be excluded
from the ORDER.
Appellant presents these appeal because the trial court has maliciously
acted bias to the request of the appellant. "A party is required to obtain a
ruling on the request, objection or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 52(a). Appellant
has properly filed these motions in the County Clerk's Office but Appellant has
not recieved no desposition. And changed conditions have Occurred.
In general, an appellate court has jurisdiction to review final and definite
judgements; a final judgement fully disposes of all issues and all parties.
Protective Orders rendered pursuant to family code are final and appealable
orders as long as the orders dispose of all parties and all issues. Cooke v.
Cooke, 65 S.W. 3d 785 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001)
On a challenge to the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to sup
port the issuance of a protective order, the Court of Appeals applies the usual
standards of review, examining the evidence to see if there is any evidence to
support the findings, or if the evidence is so weak as to be clearly wrong and
manifestly unjust. Pena v. Garza, 61 S.W. 3d 529 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2001)
-13-
The court's objective in interpreting statues is to determine and give full
effect to the legislature's intent. If a statue is clear and unambiguous on its
face/ statutory construction is not necessary, and the statute's words will be
given their plain and common meaning. Statues are presumed to have been enacted
by the legislature with complete knowledge of existing law and withreference to
it. The statutory definition of "court" and the legislature's -omission of
"jury" and "trier of fact" in family code provisions, providinq that the "court"
SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER FAMILY VIOLENCE OCCURRED AND RENDER A PROTECTIVE ORDER IF
THE "COURT" FINDS FAMILY VIOLENCE, MAKE CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED THAT
COURTS, NOT JURIES, HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF A FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDER. Williams v. Williams 19
S.W. 3d 544 (Tex.App.-Fbrt Worth 2000).
Order prohibiting family member from engaqinq in specified conduct for
period of one year was permanent injunction constitutinq appealable final order
even thouqh it was called a "protective order"; duration of iniunction did not
depend on any further action by court. James v. Hubbard, 985 S.W. 2d 516General principles of due process dictate that a litiqant has a right to
be heard and that the court must protect that riqht; opportunity to be heard
and present evidence must generally amount to more than a cursory opportunity
to cross-examine the other party's witnesses. Striedel v.. Striedel 15 S.W. 3d
163 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000)
The Fourth Court of Appeals has recently held that a protective order is
one whose "duration does not depend upon further action by the trial court" and,
therefore, is "final" for purposes of appelate jurisdiction. In_r© Cummings,
13 S.W. 3d 472.
-14-
On January 20/2011, the Court heard the Application for Protective Order
of Maria Elena Mata< applicant- Upon being in the judges' office and not in
the County Court. The presiding judge; Honorable Francisco G. Ponce/ issued a
protective ordfifwith NO Family Violence Findings. The ORDER was signed by the
influence of Honorable Francisco G. Ponce stating that appellant had the right
to hire an attorney but appellant would be wasting his economical resources be
cause it was the judges' discretion/ discouraging appellant to counsel with an
attorney. Appellant had NO knowledge that statue stated Family Violence has to
occur or is likely to occur to be entitled to a protective order/ pursuant to
the Texas Family statues/ so therefore appellant was influenced to sign the ORDER.
On April 10/2015/ Appellant filed a Writ of Mandamus to compel Honorable
Francisco G. Ponce to act on his ministerial duties. Appellant has properly
filed Motion to Modify on November 3/2014 at 2:55P.M. see Appendix "E", Motion
to Obiect on February 10/2015 please see Appendix "G"t Motion to Appeal and
Motion to Quash on April 14/2015 see Appendix "I", Motion to Sign Order and No
tice of Intent on May 15/2015/ please see Appendix"M". The Honorable Judge Fran
cisco G. Ponce presiding has failed to hear and make a determination with least
possible delay/ on the motions properly filed by a third party. In between this
motions; appellant has filed letters requesting a ruling on this motions/ please
see Appendix "F/H/h". Appellant filed this letters requesting a ruling on Jan
uary 23/2014/ see Appendix "F"; also Appellant filed a second letter on March
20,2015 at 9:08A.M., see Appendix "H&h"; Appendix "F" was filed at 11:50A.M.;
to respectfully request the Honorable Judge Francisco G. Ponce to hear the mo
tion filed in his court/ by hand delivering this motions by a third party/ and
letters.
Appellant brings an action on protective order no. 2714/ for review/ and
for this Honorable Court to render an equitable determination/ in where appellant
—15-
shows entitlement in equity and in law. A clear failure by the trial court to
analyze or apply the law correctly will constitue an abuse of discretion and
may result in appellate reversal.
On November 3/2014 at 2:55P.M., appellant challenqed the State to the legal
and factual sufficiency/ of evidence to support the issuance of a protective
order. Appellant respectfully requested the County Attorney to provide the
local Law Enforcement Agency incident reports and records to substantial-evidence
rule to hold the allegations of appellee and the courts decision of these protect
ive order. Please see Appendix "E", page 6/ "Motion to Examine Evidence".
Appellant files these appeal/ pursuant to that its the Courts' objective to
interpret statutes to determine and give full effect to the legislatures' intent.
The statute's words will be given their plain and common meaning. Within the
statute, in order for a protective order to be issue, family violence has occur
red and is likely to occur in the future, in these case NO family violence has
occurred and is likely to occur as defined in the family code statute. The
statute states the court shall determine whether family violence occurred and
render a protective order if the court finds family violence, in trial no. 2714
and upon the execution of these ORDER/ the trial courts' determination are within
the FINDINGS on page 2 of the ORDER/ No family violence occurred/ or is likely to
occur in the future. Please see Appendix "A".
One year anniversary has elapsed as stated in the statute and accordinq to
Texas statute, a protective order of one year is a permanent iniunction which
constitues of beinq final and appealable order, even thouqh it is called a
"protective order". Therefore, the Fourth Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to
review and give full meaninq to-examine evidence to OVERTURN these ORDER-
Appellant respectfully request to be heard/ as to the trial court in Dimmit
-16-
County has VIOLATED the Appellants' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS to be heard upon properly
filed motions/ and changed conditions have occurred and taken placed/ since the
ORDER was SIGNED/EXECUTED.
This protective order/ upon the negligence of the Dimmit County Court/ to
rule on motions properlv filed/ does not depend on the duration/ upon further
action by the trial court/ so therefore/ is "final" for purposes of appelate
jurisdiction.
Appellant appeals the trial courts decision/ based on a Final Divorce Decree
please see Appendix "K" attach to the Writ of Mandamus No. 04-15-00214-CV. This
■judgement rendered in the 365th District Court supersedes this protective order/
and in reference to this protective order and divorce decree/ they are conflict-
ina orders/ affecting the parent and child relationship in the best interest of
the appellants' natural and biological children.
-17-
PRAYER
WHEREFORE/ PREMISES CONSIDERED/ Appellant prays to the Honorable Said
Court to issue the following ORDER to OVERTURN the trial courts1 ORDER. Ap
pellant prays that this ORDER be VOIDED or QUASHED/ alternatively Modify to
exclude the appellant natural and biological children from the ORDER/ upon the
jurisdiction of the Notice of Appeal and Motion to Appeal. Appellant prays for
such relief in law and in equity to which the Appellant shows just entitlement/
and that Appellants' pleadings are held less stringent than formal pleadings •
drafted by lawyers. Appellant prays for all objections be sustain and general
relief and allnature sought in the Notice of Appeal and within the Appellants'
Brief.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JUAN MIGUEL MATA # 1732873
APPELLANT: PRO SE
Me. CONNELL UNIT
3001 S. EMILY DR.
BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102
-IS-
APPENDIX
NO. 04-15-0.0214-CV NO. 04-15-00366-CV
Appendix
Brief for Writ Appendix
Description of Mandamus Appellants' Brief
1 "Agreed" Protective "A"
"A"
Order; Trial Courts1
Judqement
2. "States'" Motion to Extend "B" 11B"
3. ORDER to Motion to Extend "C"
"C"
"States1"
4. Peace Officer Return "D"
Certificate of Service
5. Appellants' Motion to "E" "E
Amend/ Modify
6. Appellants' Letter REQUEST "F"
to Rule
7. Appellants' Motion to Object "G" "G"
8. Appellants' 2nd letter "H" "H"
requesting to rule
9. Appellants' letter delivered 11 h"
to -judges office
10. Appellants' Motion to Appeal "I" "I"
filed in County Clerks office
11. Appellee Affidavit of State of "J" "J"
Idaho Resident; see paqe 2
12. Appellants' and Appellee "K" "K"
Divorce Decree
13. Appellants' Inability to within the
Pay Cost writ
14. Appellants' Motion to Sign
Order and Notice of Intent
PLEASE SEE APPENDIXES THAT ARE ATTACH TO BRIEF FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FOR
REFERENCE FOR THESE BRIEF (APPENDIXES HAVE ALREADY BEEN FILED IN THE BRIEF,
NO APPENDIXES ARE ATTACH TO AVOID OVERFLOW OF DOCUMENTS)
-19-
UNSWORN DECLARATION
1/ Juan Miguel Mata, TDCJ-ID # 1732873/ beinq presently incarcerated on the
McConnell Unit of Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division in
Bee County/ Texas; do declare under penalty of perjury that the above foregoing
instrument (Appellants' Brief) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Pursuant to Federal Law [28 U.S.C. 1746 and State Law (V.T.C.A. Civil Practice
and Remedies Code S§132.001-132.00311.
Executed on this the 27th day of August /2015.
/ 73^72
JAN MIGtfEL MATA # 1732873
APPELLANT: PRO SE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1/ Juan Miguel Mata/ # 1732873/ Appellant do hereby certify that a true and
correct copy of the above foreqoinq described as Appellants1 Brief has been hand
delivered by a third party to Daniel Gonzalez; Dimmit County Attorney & Appli
cants' Attorney at 103 N. 5th St./ Carrizo Springs/ Texas 78834.
Executed on this the 27th day of August /2O15.
MIGUEL MATA # 1732873
APPELLANT: PRO SE
-20-
■-.
f '.'"
NO. 2714
IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE COUNTY COURT
§
MARIA ELENA MATA, APPLICANT §
§ OF
AND §
§
JUAN MIGUEL MATA, RESPONDENT § DIMMIT COUNTY, TEXAS
AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER
On J 2011, the COURT heard the Application for a Protective Order of MARIA
ELENA MATA, applicant.
1. Appearances
Dimmit County appeared represented by the Dimmit County Attorney, Daniel M. Gonzalez.
Applicant Maria Elena Mata:
[ ] appeared in person and by attorney, _^
and announced ready.
[X ] appeared in person and announced ready.
[ ] did not appear and wholly made default.
[ ] a record of the proceeding was waived.
Respondent, Juan Miguel Mata, having been duly and properly cited, and after having been
properly served with the application and notice of the hearing:
[ ] appeared in person and by attorney,
and announced ready.
[ X] appeared in person, made a general appearance, was provided a copy of the
Application and Amended Application For Protective Order, waived service and
announced ready.
[ ] did not appear and wholly made default.
[ ] a record of the proceeding was waived.
2. Jurisdiction
The court, having considered the pleading and heard the evidence and argument of counsel,
finds that all necessary prerequisites of the law have been satisfied pursuant to Title 4, Family Code,
and that this court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this ca
A True Copy of the original, I Certify
the /£ day of S-epjo"<\btc,t 20
AT
MARIO Z. GARCIA .O'CLOCK
Clerk, County Court MARIO Z.GARCIA
Diinmit County, Texas CounNCferk, D^milCounty, Te>
By / fltUM/jUUL&UJls Deputy
1
< t (
i
Page 2
3. Findings
The Court finds thai applicants and respondent:
[ X] are members of the same family or household, or
[ ] have or have had a dating relationship, as defined by Section 71.0021, Family
Code.
n The Court finds that:
^family violence, as defined by Section 71.004, Family Code, has occurred and is
likely to occur in the future, specifically that Respondent will continue to stalk Applicant.
[ ] the respondent violated a previous protective order while it was in effect.
[ X] the parties have agreed to the terms of this protective order.
The Court finds that this protective order is in the best interest of the applicant, the family
or household, or a member of the family or household.
The Court finds that applicant and Brandon M. Mata (06-19-2001), Mariela M. Mata (01-
23-2003) and John M. Mata (04-04-2006) are protected individuals under this order.
4. Orders Enforceable by Arrest
It is ordered that respondent is:
a. Prohibited from committing family violence as defined in § 71.004 Family
Code or an act in furtherance of an offense under § 42.072, Penal Code, against the applicant and
other protected individuals.
- b. Prohibited from communicating directly with the applicant and other protected
individuals in a threatening or harassing manner.
c. Prohibited from communicating a threat through any person to the applicant or
the other protected individuals.
- d. Prohibited from going within 200 feet of the residence of the applicant of the
other protected individuals located at 1206 North 1 Ith Street, Carrizo Springs, Dimmit County,
Texas, or any other residence where applicant may reside.
e. Prohibited from going within 200 feet of the place of employment or business
of the applicant or the other protected individuals located (at) (with) .
- f. Prohibited from going within 200 feet of the childcare facility and school(s) of
Brandon M. Mata, Mariela M. Mata, and John M. Mata, located at Carrizo Springs Intermediate
School and Carrizo Springs Elementary School, Carrizo Springs, Dimmit County, Texas.
g. Prohibited from possessing a firearm.
h. Prohibited from the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force
against an intimate partner or child that would be reasonably expected to cause bodily injury.
i. Prohibited from harassing, stalking or threatening a protected individual or
engaging in conduct that would place a protected individual in reasonable fear of bodily injury to
themselves or a child protected under this order.
Page 3
[ ] It is further ordered by the Court, after having found good cause, that respondent will
be required to participate in ten (10) hours of anger management and/or family counseling with
Maverick County Counseling Service, with the Department of Human Services, or some other
comparable counseling service.
[ ] It is further ordered by the Court, after having found good cause, that respondent is
prohibited from communicating in any manner with a member of the family or household except
throueh . __, the party's attorney, or person appointed by the
Court.
[ ] It is further ordered that respondent is excluded from the residence located at
, on or before ,
and the sheriff, constable or chief of police shall provide a law enforcement officer, who shall:
a. accompany applicant to the residence covered by the order;
b. inform the respondent that the court has ordered that respondent be excluded
from the residence;
c. protect the applicant while the applicant takes possession of the residence and
the respondent takes possession of the respondent's necessary personal property; and
d. if the respondent refuses to vacate the residence, remove the respondent and
arrest the respondent for violating this order.
5. Orders Enforceable by Contempt
The Court hereby incorporates the following attached orders in this Protective Order:
[ ] Attachment A: Orders Concerning Children.
[ ] Attachment B: Orders Concerning Property.
[ ] Attachment C: Orders Concerning Weapons.
[ ] Attachment D: Orders to Reduce the Likelihood of Violence.
6. Confidentiality of Certain Information
Pursuant to a request by a member of the family household, it is hereby ordered that the
address and telephone number of the following persons and places be excluded from this order:
[ ] a person protected by the order.
[ ] the place of employment or business of a person protected by this order.
i.- i. ,. ,_., f ] *e child-care fadlitv or sch°o1 a child protected by the order attends or in
which the child resides.
The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to strike the information listed above from the
public records of the Court, and maintain a confidential record of the information above for the
use only by the Court.
Page 4
7. Fees and Costs
It is ordered that respondent pay the following fees and costs:
[ ] Costs of court, including the protective order fee, costs of service of this
order, and all other expenses incurred in connection with this order, in the amount of $154 25
payable on or by 2011, to the Office ofthe Dimmit County Clerk.
[ ] Reasonable and necessary attorneys fees in the amount of
payable on or by to
8. Warnings
THIS ORDER MAY BE PUNISHED FOR
PROVISION OF THIS ORDER. DURING THE TIME IN
UNLESS A COURT CHANGES THE ORDER.
MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY OFFENSE. IF THE ACT
OF THIS PROTECTIVE ORDER MAY
Page 5
9. Findings in Compliance with Federal Law
The court finds that:
participate. ReSpOndent received actual «** of *» bearing and had an opportunity to
States Code, sSST' ReSPOndeM "* '"" P""8 PUKUaiM tO Title 18'
^
10. Order Forwarded
t0 *e sheri« of DIMMIT
11. Duration of Protective Order
0Cmtillue fa effect ^ TANUARY 20.
SS oS hi ?, °n *e date ^ Order would otherwise expire the
Responded^
T pt^l code
H f "confin^nt
^T^ "*or**imprisonment
°rder eXpireSpursuant
On *e first anniversary date
to Section sSk of the
_ . 12« Service of Protective Order
This court finds that the order:
[X] has been served on Respondent in open court; or
[ ] has been served on Respondent's attorney; or
injunction; or [ ] ^ ^ perS°naIly Served on resP°ndent in the same manner as a writ on
with Rule 21 A[ ilf3 pb? SeT^°M 'esP°ndent bv registered or certified mail in accordance
wiin Kuie 21 A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedures.
c c
Page 6
Signed and entered on (he ^ day jffl /y$"'Ltf£'<***4 2011.
FRANCISCOG. PONCE,
DIMMIT COUNTY JUDGE
AMOVED TO FORM AND CONTENT:
Respondent- yRJAN'MIGUEL MATA
Address:
Date of Birth: 10-31-1974
SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX
TDL:
Applicant- MARIA ELENA MATA
Date of Birth: 04-23-1967
SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
Respondent's Attorney
Address:
Phone:_
Fax:
SBN:
Daniel M. Gonzalez,
Dimmit County Attorney
Address: 103 North 5* Street, Suite 6B
Carrizo Springs, Texas 78834
Phone: 830-876-4236
Fax:830-876-4219
SBN: 00784144
DECLARATION OF INABILITY TO PAY COST
(The following Declaration is made pursuant to the Texas Rales of Civil Proced
ure, Tex.R.App.P. Rule 20, Chapter 132 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code.)
COMES NOW, Juan Miquel Mata, TDCJ-ID # 1732873, and declares that I am un
able to pay the court costs in this Notice of Appeal,and request leave of the
Court to proceed in forma pauperis in this acconiDanvinq Notice to Appeal and
would show the Court the following:
(1) I am presently incarcerated in the Me. Connell Unit of Texas Depart
ment of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division where I am not per
mitted to earn or handle any money.
(2) I have no source of Income or spousal income.
(3)1 currently have $ credited to me in the Inmate Trust Fund.
(4) During my incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-
Institutional Division. I have recieved approximately $120.00 per
month as gifts from relatives and friends.
(5) I neither own nor have an interest in any reality, stocks, bonds, or
bank accounts and I recieve no interest or dividend income from any
source.
(6) I have 4 dependents.
(7) I have total debts of approximately $ 12,000.00 (child support incl.)
(8) I owe g0.CO as restitution.
(9) My monthly expenses are approximately $900.00.
I, Juan Miguel Mata/ TDCJ-ID # 1732873, being presently incarcerated in the
Me. Connell Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Div
ision, Bee County, verify and declare under penalty of perjury that the above
foregoing statements are true and correct-
EXECUTED on this the day of , 2015
AJUAN MIGUEL MATA # 1732873
APPELLANT: PRO SE
JUAN MIGUEL HATA #1732873
Me. CONNECT, UNIT
3001 5. EMILY DR.
BEEVILLE/ TEXAS 78102
May 8,2015
Dimmit County Courthouse
AIT: MARIO Z. GARCIA: DIMMIT COUNTY CLERK
103 N. 5th St.
Carrizo Sprinqs, Texas 78834
RE: ENCLOSED ARE ORIGINAL MOTION TO SIGN ORDER AMD NOTICE OF INTENT
STYLE: MARIA ELENA MATA V- JOAN MIGUEL MATA
TRIAL NUMBER: 2714
Dear Mr Garcia;
Please accept this letter and its attachment. Enclosed is a Motion to Siqn
Orders and a Notice of Intent with its Corresponding Orders, Unsworn Declar
ation and Certificate of Service.
Please file this Motion to Sign Orders and Notice of Intent, and docket it
within your docket sheet as you forward this foreqoinq instruments, to the
Honorable Court, and provide a copy date stamped from the date vour office
recieved this delivering it to the third partv person.
Thank You for your assistance in this matter.
fUAN MIGUEL MATA #1732873
RESPONDENT: PRO SE
ENCLOSURE: ORIGINAL MOTION TO SIGN ORDER
NOTICE OF INTENT
cc: File ;
*** Mario Z. Garcia, Dimmit County Clerk***
Daniel Gonzalez, Dimmit County Attorney
Honorable Francisco G. Ponce Office ■
FILED
IL
DATE IS' .20 I $
AT / O'CLOCK7J3d
MARIO Z. GARCIA
County Clerk, DimmiKlounty. Texa3
By
JUAN MIGUEL MATA #1732873
He- CONNELL UNIT
3001 S. EMILY DR.
BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102
May 8, 2015
Diramit County Courthouse
AW: HONORABLE FRANCISCO G. PONCE Via Hand Deliver
103 N. 5th St.
Carrizo Sprinqs, Texas 78834
2714 (-AGREED-
Dear Honorable Francisco G. Ponce;
copy of the Motion to Siqn Orders and is a
the
You vour a3siatance and
JUAN MIGUEL MATA #1732873
RESPONDENT: PRO SE
ENCLOSURE: ORIGINAL MOTION TO SIGN ORDER
NOTICE OF INTENT
File
Mario Z. Garcia, Dimmit County Clerk
£aniel?°nZalez' Diimit bounty Attorney
Francisco G. Ponces' Office*****
iff. £r
NO. 2714
IN THE MATTER OP
§ IN THE COUNTY COURT
MARIA ELENA MATA, APPLICANT
S
AND $
OF
$
JOAN MIGUEL MATA, RBSPONnRNT
DIMMIT COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION TO STEM
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT;
COHES N0W( JUAN MICUEL .m #1732873,
for cause
show the followinq:
on 3,
to Modify,
wotlon
And
..^
clerks' office bv third p.rty hand delivers this fo,Molng ln3truments
of to date no rulino, corresoondence, detecminetion or re3Donse haa
from this Honorable Court or the Di«it Countv clerk's office.
IOTICB OP IM1TM1'
COMES «,. JUAN HIGUE, HATA, »,.„ f 1M)l " fa
entitled and no*erea cause, files thia notzce OP ITO purauant to
, , and £or
followinq;
Thia Honorable Court haa faUed to rule on rotiona oroperlv filed in the
Clerks Office. Reaoondent haa aeeWed reUef throu* a nearino of review, to
— a determination on thia .otiona with the least, effic.ent, possib.e delav
and has been unSuccessful. Hes^ent ha, a leaa> inCerest in tHia proceeding
and ia reaoectfuUv reauestinq to be heard.
If no response is render Respondent wi,, Oroceed to «,. an W
for writ or Mandamus, with it3 corres^in, brief. «ter 30 business
of this motion and notlce;have ^
«-"= «*»* Clerks 0«ice, no response or
correspondence such actiona win commence.
BMYBt
mERE^ PREMISES
Court to issue the followinq orders;
Hespondent pravs for a rulinc, determination, or response on this motions
properly filed in this Court.
Respondent pravs protective order ,271, be qa^ma UEOn
»3«. alter^tivelv that this order be ^ied, „ at last
all
°" tte ^ie« °f '"3 motions,
pravs the Honors court ^ wleh
Respondent prays for such reHef in law and in equity to which the Respondent
shows just entitlement.
Respondent prays for general relief and all nature sought.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED;
r
MIGUE©MATA;
& ATfc; #1732873
PONDENT; PRO SE
Me. CONNELL UNIT
3001 S. EMILY DR.
BEEVILLE, TEXAS 78102
DECLARATKIfJ
the
the /
Me. T ?^Unit of the Texas Der3' bab» PV
Connell PresentlV incarcerated
incarcerated on
on
Unit of the Texas Depart of criminal .ustice-mstitutioL
Division in Bee County, Texas: do deciare under penalty of perjury that the
instrument is true and correct to the best of *y Knowledge. Pur
suant to Federal law [28 U.S.C. 1746 and State Law (V.T.c.A. civil Practice
and Remedxes Code 132.001-132.003)]. practice
Executed on this the _£^__day of H^ , 2015.
JUAN Ml^UKL MATA #1732873
#
RES
RESPONDENT; PR9 SE
OP
I, Juan Miguel Mata, Respondent, do hereby cerify that a true and correct
:j3,;hT"•78834andMarioz-
,lO3 N. 5th; Carrizo Springs, TX. 78834, .
Executed on this the f* dav of
2015
1732873"
No. 2714
IN THE MATTER OP
§ IN THE COUNTY COURT
MARIA ELENft MATA, APPLICANT
§
AND OP
§
JOAN MIGUEL MATA, RESPONDENT
DIMMIT COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER
ON THIS DAY, came to be heard this Motion to Sign Order, pursuant to
V.T.C.A. Government Section 12OS.CT
*. court havin, heacd all euidence apd " ^ "
***** is entiUed to a nearino and suoh 0RDER be viewed, o0en,
or vacated, pursuant to and in accordance to Section as.o^M. „ .,.■
court PIMDS that Respondent «0 ionoer AGREES and the Court is of
OPINION to:
( ) GRANT
( ) DENIED
the signinq of any correspondinq order to the motions properly filed.
SIGNED this aav of
y /A.D. 2015.
HONORABLE FRANCISCO G. PONCE
DIMMIT COUNTY JUDGE