NO. WR-86,920-02
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_______________________________________________________________________________

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. BRIAN WICE, RELATOR.
____________________________________________________

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AGAINST THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS
IN CAUSE NOS. 416-81913-2015; 416-82148-2015; 416-82149-2015
OF COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS

______________________________________________________

AMICUS CURIE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
RELATOR’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
NICHOLAS “NICO” LAHOOD
Bexar County District Attorney
Bexar County, Texas
101 W. Nueva, 7th Floor
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3030
(210) 335-2342
(210) 335-2436 (fax)
State Bar No. 2403030360

DAVID ESCAMILLA

MARGARET M. MOORE
Travis County District Attorney
Travis County, Texas
509 West 11th St.
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 854-9400
(512) 854-4206
State Bar No. 14360050

LISA C. McMINN

Travis County Attorney
Travis County, Texas
314 West 11th Street, Room 300
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 854-9415
(512) 854-9316
State Bar No. 06662300

Former State Prosecuting Attorney
1213 Alta Vista Ave.
Austin, Texas 78704
State Bar No. 13803300

JOHN F. HEALEY, JR.

ENRICO B. VALDEZ

Fort Bend County District Attorney
Fort Bend County, Texas
1422 Eugene Heimann Cir.
Richmond, TX 77469
(281) 341-4460
(281) 341-4440
State Bar No. 09328300

Bexar County District Attorney
Bexar County, Texas
101 W. Nueva, 7th Floor
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3030
(210) 335-2342
(210) 335-2436 (fax)
State Bar No. 00797589

Counsel for Amicus Curie

 Identity of Parties and Counsel
Relators:
Brian W. Wice
Kent Schaffer
Nicole DeBorde
Counsel for Relator
Collin County Criminal District Attorney Pro Tem Brian Wice
Respondent:
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Real Party in Interest:
Collin County Commissioners Court
Counsel for Real Party in Interest:
Bryan Burg & Clyde Siebman
Real Party in Interest:
Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr.
Trial Judge:
Honorable George Gallagher
416th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Honorable Robert Johnson
177th Criminal District Court
Harris County, Texas

ii

 Table of Contents

Page(s)
Identity of Parties and Counsel ....................................................................... ii
Table of Authorities ......................................................................................... v-vi
Brief in Support of the Relators ...................................................................... 1
Statement of the Case ...................................................................................... 1
Issue Presented ............................................................................................... 2
The sole ground for mandamus relief is whether the Fifth Court
of Appeals clearly abused its discretion granting mandamus
relief on the issue of first impression of whether the Collin
County district judges exceeded their authority in adopting
Local Rule 4.01B.
Statement of Facts ........................................................................................... 2-5
Summary of the Argument .............................................................................. 5
The Fifth Court of Appeals incorrectly interpreted art. 26.05 of
the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and the court’s opinion
undermines the ability of private attorneys appointed as pro
tems to fulfill their obligations as prosecutors. The Court’s
finding that a rule adopted by local criminal judges that permits
variances from the set fee schedule in special or unusual
circumstances is void, creates the unintended effect of either
discouraging qualified attorneys from accepting the
appointment or forcing them to choose between their own
financial interests and their responsibilities as prosecutors. It
also gives local county commissioners the ability to effectively
end a criminal prosecution.
Argument ........................................................................................................ 5-14
Prayer .............................................................................................................. 15
Certificate of Service........................................................................................ 17-19

iii

 Certificate of Compliance ................................................................................ 17

iv

 Table of Authorities

Page(s)

CASES
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) ................................................ 11
Duggan v. State, 778 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989).......................... 10
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) .............................................. 11
Young v. United States ex. Rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987) ... 10
STATUTES
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.01 (West 2005) .................................. 9, 10
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.07(a) & (d)(West 2005) ........................... 9
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.07(a) (West 2005) ................................... 6
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.07(c)(West 2005) .................................... 6
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 20.03 (West 2015) .................................... 10
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 20.04 (West 2015) .................................... 10
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 20.05 (West 2015) .................................... 10
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 27.03 (West 2006) ................................... 13
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.05(a)(West 2009).................................. 6
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.05(b) & (c)(West 2009) ......................... 6
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.05(c)(West 2009) .................................. 7
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 28.01 § 1(4) (West 2006).......................... 13
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 28.01 § 1(5) (West 2006) .......................... 13
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 28.01 § 1(6) (West 2006).......................... 13
v

 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 28.01 § 1(9) (West 2006).......................... 13
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Mark Curriden, Indigent Defense in the South: Begging for Justice, A.B.A.
J., Jan. 1991, at 64, 67) ............................................................................... 8
Richard Klein, The Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Be Compelled
to Render Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 68 IND. L.J. 363, 365 (1993)8
Bill Piat, Reinventing the Wheel: Constructing Ethical Approaches to State
Indigent Legal Defense Systems, 2 St. Mary's J. Legal Mal. & Ethics 372,
404 (2012) .................................................................................................. 7
Jeffrey J. Pokorak, Rape Victims and Prosecutors: The Inevitable Ethical
Conflict Of De Facto Client/Attorney Relationships, 48 S. TEX. L. REV.
695, 703 (2007) ................................................................................... 11, 12
Nicole L. Phillips & Stephen Smith, Reinterpreting the Ethical Duties of a
Prosecutor: Y-STR as a Model Investigatory Tool, 22 GEO. J. LEGAL
ETHICS 1073, 1082 (2009) ......................................................................... 11
Gerald S. Reamey, The Truth Might Set You Free: How The Michael
Morton Act Could Fundamentally Change Texas Criminal Discovery, Or
Not, 48 TEX. TECH L. REV. 893, 905 (2016) .............................................. 12
Tex. Task Force On Indigent Def. & The Spangenberg Grp., Blueprint For
Creating A Public Defender Office In Texas 25-43 (2d ed. 2008) ........... 14

vi

 AMICUS CURIE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RELATORS
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Now comes, Nicholas “Nico” LaHood, District Attorney of Bexar
County, Texas, David Escamilla, Travis County Attorney, John F. Healey,
Jr., Fort Bend District Attorney, Margaret M. Moore, Travis County District
Attorney, and Lisa McMinn, former State’s Prosecuting Attorney, and files
this amicus brief in support of the Relators.
I. Statement of the Case
This is an original mandamus proceeding brought by the Relator
Brian Wice, Collin County Criminal District Attorney Pro Tem, under Tex.
R. App. P. 72.

In his petition, Relator asks this Court to compel the

Respondent, the Fifth Court of Appeals, to vacate its August 21, 2017, order
in trial court cause numbers 416-81913-2015, 416-82148-2015, and 41682149-2015, State of Texas v. Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., directing Judge
George Gallagher to vacate his January 4, 2017, “Second Order on Payment
of Attorney’s Fees to Attorneys Pro Tem” approving a second set of interim
requests for pre-trial compensation for work performed in these matters in
2016. In re Collin County, Texas, and County Commissioners, ___ S.W.3d
___, 2017 WL 3587108 (Tex. App.—Dallas August 21, 2017)(orig.
proceed.).

 II. Issue Presented for Mandamus Relief
The sole ground for mandamus relief is whether the Fifth Court of
Appeals clearly abused its discretion granting mandamus relief on the issue
of first impression of whether the Collin County district judges exceeded
their authority in adopting Local Rule 4.01B.
III. Statement of Facts & Procedural History 1
In April of 2015, the Public Integrity Unit of the Texas Rangers
forwarded a formal complaint against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
for alleged violations of the State Securities Act. Pursuant to Tex. Govt.
Code art. 411.0255(b), Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis filed a
request on April 20, 2015, recusing his office in this investigation. Pursuant
to art. 2.07(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Collin County Local
Administrative Judge Scott Becker appointed criminal lawyers Brian Wice
and Kent Schaffer to serve as attorneys pro tem, agreeing to pay them $300
an hour for their professional services pursuant to Local Rule 4.01B which
permitted judge’s to vary from the fee schedule in unusual circumstances or
where the fee would be manifestly inappropriate because of circumstances
beyond the control of the appointed counsel. A third attorney pro tem,
Nicole DeBorde, was appointed by Judge Gallagher in September 2015.

1

The following statement of facts is taken primarily from Relators’ brief in this matter.

2

 In July 2015, a Collin County grand jury indicted Paxton for three
felonies: two counts first-degree felony securities fraud and one count of
third-degree failure to register as an investment advisor in the manner
required by the State Securities Act. Over the next seven and one-half
months, the Special Prosecutors incurred considerable expenses and
engaged in extensive work that included responding to over a dozen pretrial writs and motions filed by Paxton’s 12-member legal team, and
traveling to Collin County for multiple hearings. Tarrant County District
Judge George Gallagher, assigned to these cases when the Collin County
District Judges recused themselves, Slip Op.3 n. 1, denied all Paxton’s pretrial motions and writs. The court of appeals affirmed Judge Gallagher’s
rulings and this Court refused Paxton’s petitions for discretionary review.
See Ex parte Paxton, 493 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016, pet.
ref’d)(en banc).
The Special Prosecutors submitted requests for interim payment in
December 2015, pursuant to their agreement with Judge Becker, who
“apparently relied [on Rule 4.01B] when he reached the fee agreement with
the attorneys pro tem.” Slip op. 3. In December 2015, Paxton filed an
“Objection to Excessive or Interim Payment of Fees to Attorneys Pro Tem,”
challenging the Special Prosecutors’ fees and claiming that the Special

3

 Prosecutors’ payment for all pre-trial matters should be capped at $1,000
per case. Judge Gallagher overruled Paxton’s motion challenging these fees
and signed an order requiring the Commissioners to pay it. In January
2016, the Commissioners approved the Special Prosecutors’ fee payments
by a vote of 3-2. Slip op. 4.
In 2016, the Special Prosecutors devoted considerable time and
incurred considerable expenses in these three felony cases. Their work
included filing an appellate brief and presenting oral argument in the court
of appeals in the pre-trial writ matters; responding to Paxton’s petition for
discretionary review in this Court; responding to Paxton’s motions to
dismiss and an exhaustive motion for change of venue that was granted
after multiple hearings. Judge Gallagher granted the State’s motion, finding
that an influential group of Paxton’s supporters had engaged in a protracted
attempt to taint the Collin County jury pool by attacking the Special
Prosecutors, the victims, and Judge Gallagher in electronic, print, and
social media. See n. 5, supra.
Additionally, in 2016, Jeffory Blackard, sued the Special Prosecutors
multiple times “on behalf of the taxpayers of Collin County”. After the court
of appeals dismissed Blackard’s last lawsuit, the Commissioners sought
mandamus relief in the court of appeals against Judge Gallagher. After

4

 calling for a response, the court of appeals granted mandamus relief on
August 21, 2017. Paxton’s third-degree felony trial is set to begin on
December 11, 2017.
IV. Summary of the Argument
The Fifth Court of Appeals incorrectly interpreted art. 26.05 of the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and the court’s opinion undermines the
ability of private attorneys appointed as pro tems to fulfill their obligations
as prosecutors. The Court’s finding that a rule adopted by local criminal
judges that permits variances from the set fee schedule in special or
unusual circumstances is void discourages qualified attorneys from
accepting the appointment or forces them to choose between their own
financial interests and their responsibilities as prosecutors. It also gives
local county commissioners the ability to effectively end a criminal
prosecution.
V. Argument
Relator has provided this Court with ample argument and authorities
to support his claim for relief. Rather than repeat those arguments here,
this brief will focus on the public policy implications of the Fifth Court of
Appeals’ opinion in deterring competent attorneys from accepting
appointments as attorneys pro tem.

5

 The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides not only for the
appointment of attorneys pro tem,2 but also for the compensation of certain
pro tems.

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.07(c)(West 2005).

Specifically, if the pro tem is not already an attorney for the state, he or she
“shall receive compensation in the same amount and manner as an attorney
appointed to represent an indigent person.” Id.
Compensation for attorneys appointed to represent indigent
defendants is governed by art. 26.05 of the Code. The article mandates that
the attorney “be paid a reasonable attorney’s fee for performing… services,
based on the time and labor required, the complexity of the case, and the
experience and ability of the appointed counsel… .” Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 26.05(a)(West 2009)emphasis added). In addition to requiring
reasonable compensation, the article also requires that the judges of county
courts, statutory county courts, and district courts trying criminal cases
adopt a fee schedule and that all payments be made in accordance with that
fee schedule. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.05(b) & (c)(West 2009).
The adopted fee schedule is required to “state reasonable fixed rates or
minimum and maximum hourly rates, taking into consideration reasonable
and necessary overhead costs and the availability of qualified attorneys

2

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.07(a) (West 2005).

6

 willing to accept the stated rates… .” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.
26.05(c)(West 2009).
In accordance with article 26.05, the local Collin County criminal
court judges adopted a fee schedule that included a provision for “unusual
circumstances.” Specifically, Local Rule 4.01B provided that the “judge
presiding over a case may authorize payment to appointed counsel that
varies from the fee schedule in unusual circumstances or where the fee
would be manifestly inappropriate because of circumstances beyond the
control of the appointed counsel.” In re Collin County, Slip. Op. at *3. This
provision is consistent with article 26.05’s overriding mandate of providing
reasonable compensation to appointed attorneys.
By adopting Rule 4.01B, the Collin County judges built into the fee
system a mechanism to avoid the potential problems that arise when
appointed counsel is inadequately compensated. Perhaps the most obvious
danger of inadequate compensation is that “quality attorneys will stay away
from the indigent-defense system due to the economic incentives of private
representation.” Bill Piat, Reinventing the Wheel: Constructing Ethical
Approaches to State Indigent Legal Defense Systems, 2 St. Mary's J. Legal
Mal. & Ethics 372, 404 (2012); see also Richard Klein, The Eleventh
Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Be Compelled to Render Ineffective

7

 Assistance of Counsel, 68 IND. L.J. 363, 365 (1993) (Inadequate pay leads
to a major problem of not being able to attract “qualified attorneys to act as
court-appointed counsel for the indigent.”). While a general fee schedule
may work appropriately in most cases, having a provision for special
circumstances avoids injustice in “unusual” cases. After all, it is often the
unusual cases that require the most skilled and qualified attorneys and
these are the very attorneys who are most likely to decline the
representation without adequate compensation.

See Piat, at 390, 404

(explaining that experienced lawyers often will not accept court
appointments).
And even when attorneys accept the representation, inadequately
compensated counsel “may lack the motivation to spend the many hours
required in preparing a case.” Klein, at 368. Studies have concluded that
low fees result in inadequate case preparation. Id. (citing Mark Curriden,
Indigent Defense in the South: Begging for Justice, A.B.A. J., Jan. 1991, at
64, 67). Inadequate pay for indigent defense creates a situation where
lawyers “are likely to focus their energies on their paying clients because of
the far greater income produced.” Id. (citation omitted).
The Fifth Court Appeals holding could also result in “a conflict of
interest between the attorney and his client.” Id. at 374. That is, once the

8

 attorney “has spent the number of hours on a case that warrants the
maximum compensation, it will be to the attorney’s financial detriment to
continue to vigorously represent the client’s best interest.” Such a situation
is more likely to arise in a complex or unusual case. Collin County’s Rule
4.01B prevents the conflict by allowing an attorney to request additional
compensation in appropriate cases.
Inadequate compensation is not only a problem for lawyers
representing indigent defendants; it is also a concern for private attorneys
appointed to represent the state in a criminal prosecution as pro tems. In
fact, the unique obligations and duties of prosecutors create a greater risk
for problems.
Whenever an elected district or county attorney is disqualified or is
otherwise unable to unable to perform the duties of the office, the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes the appointment of a competent
attorney to perform the duties of the office. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
art. 2.07(a) & (d)(West 2005). Statutorily, these duties include assisting
grand juries and representing the State in criminal cases in the courts of the
jurisdiction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.01 (West 2005) (“Each
district attorney shall represent the State in all criminal cases in the district
courts of his district and in appeals therefrom”); Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

9

 Ann. art. 20.03 (West 2015) (“Attorney representing the State entitled to
appear”); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 20.04 (West 2015) (“Attorney
may examine witnesses”); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 20.05 (West
2015) (“grand jury may send for the attorney representing the state and ask
his advice upon any matter of law or upon any question arising respecting
the proper discharge of duties.”). While the Code lists some of the duties of
a prosecutor, the listed duties are not comprehensive nor do they reflect the
full scope of the prosecutor’s job or obligations.
Unlike most lawyers, the “prosecutor occupies a unique role in our
criminal justice system… .” Young v. United States ex. Rel. Vuitton et Fils
S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 826 (1987) (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting
in part). The primary responsibility of most attorneys is to act as an
advocate for his or her client.

The “primary duty of all prosecuting

attorneys, including any special prosecutors, [is] not to convict, but to see
that justice is done.”

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.01 (West

2005)(emphasis added). “This overriding duty falls upon the prosecutor in
his capacity as the State’s representative in criminal matters.” Duggan v.
State, 778 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). “As a trustee of the
State’s interest in providing fair trials, the prosecutor is obliged to
illuminate the court with the truth of the cause, so that the judge and jury

10

 may properly render justice.” Id. The Supreme Court has “recognized that
the prosecutor’s role transcends that of an adversary: he ‘is the
representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
sovereignty… whose interest… in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall
win a case, but that justice shall be done.” United States v. Bagley, 473
U.S. 667, 675 n.6 (1985) (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88
(1935)). Thus, prosecutors “are charged with different responsibilities and
ethical duties.” Nicole L. Phillips & Stephen Smith, Reinterpreting the
Ethical Duties of a Prosecutor: Y-STR as a Model Investigatory Tool, 22
GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 1073, 1082 (2009).
Prosecutors have “the inherent power or discretion to initiate
investigations, to point the power of a grand jury at an individual, to seek
charges from a grand jury, to decide after charging whether to drop some or
all charges, to offer the option of a plea to a lesser offense, and to
recommend a range of or a specific punishment.” Jeffrey J. Pokorak, Rape
Victims and Prosecutors: The Inevitable Ethical Conflict Of De Facto
Client/Attorney Relationships, 48 S. TEX. L. REV. 695, 703 (2007).
Additionally, “prosecutors have taken an increasingly active role in the
investigatory phase of criminal cases.” Phillips & Smith, at 1083-84.
“Many, if not most, significant investigatory decisions require the

11

 involvement of the prosecutor.” Id. “The prosecutor’s vast investigative
role includes seeking warrants and grand jury subpoenas, overseeing
undercover operations, ordering surveillance of witnesses, making plea
bargains in exchange for investigative assistance or testimony, and
obtaining non-testimonial items of physical evidence… .” Id. In short,
prosecutors are required to spend a considerable amount of time and effort
even before a criminal charge has been filed in a court.
The time and effort spent on the prosecution does not end once the
indictment or information has been returned. Prosecutors have ethical
obligations under Brady and Rule 3.09 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary
Conduct and must also comply with the requirements of art. 39.14. As one
learned commentator noted, this statute “redistributes the burden of
discovery” on the prosecution and “creates a virtually automatic disclosure
duty.” Gerald S. Reamey, The Truth Might Set You Free: How The Michael
Morton Act Could Fundamentally Change Texas Criminal Discovery, Or
Not, 48 TEX. TECH L. REV. 893, 905 (2016). To fulfill these obligations,
obligations which continue and extend beyond a final conviction, a
prosecutor is required to be proactive and not simply rely on information
provided by law enforcement. Again, this takes time and effort. And this

12

 must be done in every single case, regardless of whether the end result is a
plea bargain, a dismissal, or a full trial.
The pro tem must also be prepared to respond to the numerous
motions that can be filed by the defense. Such motions include motions to
set aside the indictment or information 3 motions for continuance, 4 motions
to suppress evidence, 5 and motions for change of venue. 6 And since the
prosecutor has no control over whether a defendant will accept a plea offer,
at some point the pro tem will have to be prepared to go to trial. This
means interviewing every state’s witness, reviewing every piece of evidence,
and anticipating and preparing for potential defenses.
The Fifth Court of Appeals opinion in this case undermines the ability
of private attorneys appointed as pro tems from fulfilling their obligations
as prosecutors.

This has the unintended effect of either discouraging

qualified attorneys from accepting the appointment or forcing them to
choose between their own financial interests and their responsibilities as
prosecutors.

It also creates a situation where the local county

commissioners can effectively stop a criminal prosecution.

3

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 27.03 (West 2006); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 28.01
§ 1(4) (West 2006).
4
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 28.01 § 1(5) (West 2006).
5
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 28.01 § 1(6) (West 2006).
6
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 28.01 § 1(9) (West 2006).

13

 VI. Conclusion
Because of variances in demographics, population density, and other
relevant factors, a “one-size-fits-all” approach to indigent defense
compensation is not practical. See Tex. Task Force On Indigent Def. & The
Spangenberg Grp., Blueprint For Creating A Public Defender Office In
Texas 25-43 (2d ed. 2008).

The legislature recognized this fact and

amended Article 26.05 to allow local criminal courts to have control over
how attorneys representing the indigent and the state (as attorneys pro
tem) were compensated in their jurisdictions. The judges of Collin County
decided that reasonable compensation required making allowances for
unusual cases and adopted Rule 4.01B. If this Court holds, like the Fifth
Court of Appeals, that local judges cannot allow for special circumstances,
then this Court will actively discourage qualified attorneys from accepting
appointments as pro tems and effectively give commissioners control over
criminal prosecutions. This is unacceptable given the critical role
prosecutors have in our criminal justice system.

14

 VI. Prayer for Relief
Amicus Curies asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to vacate
Respondent’s decision and order of August 21, 2017, and to enforce Judge
Gallagher’s Second Order on Payment of Attorneys’ Fees to Attorneys Pro
Tem of January 4, 2017.
Respectfully submitted
_/s/ Nicolas “Nico” Lahood________
NICOLAS “NICO” LAHOOD
Criminal District Attorney
Bexar County, Texas
Paul Elizondo Tower
101 W. Nueva, 7th Floor
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3030
(210) 335-2342
(210) 335-2436 (fax)
State Bar No. 24030360
_/s/ David Escamilla __________
DAVID ESCAMILLA
Travis County Attorney
Travis County, Texas
314 West 11th Street, Room 300
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 854-9415
(512) 854-9316
State Bar No. 06662300

15

 _/s/ John F. Healey, Jr._______ ___
JOHN F. HEALEY, JR.
Fort Bend County District Attorney
Fort Bend County, Texas
1422 Eugene Heimann Cir.
Richmond, TX 77469
(281) 341-4460
(281) 341-4440
State Bar No. 09328300
_/s/ Margaret M. Moore______ ___
MARGARET M. MOORE
Travis County District Attorney
Travis County, Texas
509 West 11th St.
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 854-9400
(512) 854-4206
State Bar No. 14360050
_/s/ Lisa C. McMinn_ ______ ___
LISA C. McMINN
Former State Prosecuting Attorney
1213 Alta Vista Ave.
Austin, Texas 78704
State Bar No. 13803300
_/s/ Enrico B. Valdez__________
ENRICO B. VALDEZ
Assistant Criminal District Attorney
Bexar County, Texas
Paul Elizondo Tower
101 W. Nueva, 4th Floor
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3030
(210) 335-2379
(210) 335-2436 (fax)
State Bar No. 00797589
Attorneys for Amicus Curie

16

 Certificate of Compliance
I, Enrico B. Valdez, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Bexar
County, Texas, certify pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(3) that this brief
contains 4,251 words according to the word count of the computer program
used to prepare the brief.

_/s/ Enrico B. Valdez__________
ENRICO B. VALDEZ

Certificate of Service
I, Enrico B. Valdez, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Bexar
County, Texas, certify that a copy of the foregoing Amicus Curiae Brief in
Support of Relators was served mail, facsimile, and/or electronically on this
27th day of October 2017, to the following:
Philip H. Hilder
Q. Tate Williams
Paul L. Creech
Hilder & Associates, P.C.
819 Lovett Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77006
Dan Cogdell
Cogdell Law Firm, PLLC
402 Main Street, 4th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002

17

 William Mateja
Polsinelli, P.C.
2950 N. Harwood, Suite 2100
Dallas, TX 75201
Terri Moore
300 Burnett St., Ste. 160
Fort Worth, TX 76102-2755
Heather J. Barbieri
Barbieri Law Firm, P.C.
1400 Gables Court
Plano, Texas 75075
J. Mitchell Little
Scheef & Stone, LLP
2600 Network Blvd., Ste. 400
Frisco, TX 75034
Counsel for Defendant Warren
Kenneth Paxton, Jr.
Brian W. Wice
440 Louisiana Suite 900
Houston, Texas 77002-1635
Kent Schaffer
Nicole Deborde
712 Main Suite 2400
Houston, Texas 77002
Collin County Criminal District
Attorneys
Counsel for the State of Texas,
Attorneys Pro Tem
Clyde M. Siebman
Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP
300 North Travis
Sherman, Texas 75090

18

 Bryan H. Burg
Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith,
LLP4949 Hedgcoxe Road, Suite 230
Plano, Texas 75024
Counsel for Realtor
James P. Allison
General Counsel
County Judges and Commisioners
Association of Texas
A.O. Watson House
420 W. 12th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
_/s/ Enrico B. Valdez__________
ENRICO B. VALDEZ

19