2023-01-09 1

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

The following is a complete list of all parties, as well as the names and addresses of all counsel:

Mr. DAVID LEWIS HOLLAND (#02403882) TDCJ-ID Robertson Unit
12071 FM 3522
Abilene, TX 79601
Appellant

Mr. JEFF HILL Trial
2505 Lakeview Drive, Suite 301
Amarillo, Texas 79109

Mr. JOE MARR WILSON Appeal
905 S Fillmore St # 550
Amarillo, TX 79101

THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee
Counsel for Appellee:
Mr. Randall Sims Trial & Appeal
47th Criminal District Attorney
Mr. TIM BURSON Trial
Ms. TAYLOR GUERRERO
Assistant District Attorneys
501 S. Fillmore, Suite 5A
Amarillo, Texas 79101

108th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS
The Honorable DOUGLAS WOODBURN
District Courts Building
501 S. Fillmore Suite 4A
Amarillo, TX 79101

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, David Lewis Holland, Appellant in this cause, by
and through his counsel of record, Joe Marr Wilson, and, pursuant to the
provisions of TEX. R. APP. P. 38, et. seq., files this brief on appeal.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant was charged by indictment in Cause No. 80,908-E-CR
with the first-degree felony offense of arson of a habitation, enhanced.
(CR 1:15).[^1] He was also charged by indictment in Cause No. 80,921-E-
CR with the third-degree felony offense of unlawful possession of a
firearm by a felon, enhanced. (CR 2:10). In another case, he was charged
by indictment in Cause No. 80,977-E-CR with the third-degree felony
offense of evading arrest with a motor vehicle, enhanced. (CR 3:10).
Finally, Appellant was also charged by indictment in Cause No. 81,045-
E-CR with the second-degree felony offense of aggravated assault with a

[1]: Appellant’s Brief encompasses four cases. The Appellate matters correspond to the matters below as follows: 07-22-00162-CR (80,908-E-CR); 07-22-00163-CR (80,921- E-CR); 07-22-00164-CR (80,977-E-CR); and 07-22-00165-CR (81,045-E-CR). A single Reporter’s Record was submitted in eight volumes and will be referred to as such. However, four separate Clerk’s Records were submitted, each in two volumes, comprised of a public volume and a sealed volume. The public volumes of the Clerk’s Records will be treated as volumes 1-4. If necessary, the sealed volumes will be treated as volumes 5-8, respectively. References to the Clerk’s Record and Reporter’s Record are abbreviated “CR” and “RR” respectively, followed by the volume and page number.

deadly weapon. (CR 3:13). In Cause No. 81,045-E-CR, the State also
filed a notice of enhancement, using the same conviction alleged in the
other causes. (CR 3:17).

When the matters were called for trial, Appellant pled not guilty to
all of the charges and proceeded to a jury trial. (RR 5:84-86). On May
24, 2022, the jury found Appellant guilty on all four charges. (RR 6:191).
Appellant pled true to the enhancement allegations in all four cases. (RR
7:8-10). On May 25, 2022, the jury found the enhancement allegations to
be true and assessed punishment at 99 years confinement in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division and a $10,000.00
fine, 20 years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Institutional Division, 5 years confinement in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Institutional Division and a $10,000.00 fine, and 80
years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Institutional Division, respectively. Appellant has now perfected his
appeal by timely filing a Notice of Appeal on May 26, 2022. (CR 1:226).

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal under Article 5, Section
6 of the Texas Constitution and Articles 4.03 and 44.02 of the Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Issue One
Whether the trial court violated Appellant’s right to a speedy
trial under the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and
Article 1 Section 10 of the Texas Constitution?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Brittany McNutt met Appellant at Vertava Health Treehouse
rehabilitation center in October 2020, and they struck up a relationship.
(RR 5:103). In February 2021, she moved from Dallas to Amarillo, and
took up residence with Appellant. (RR 5:104). Within two months, the
relationship soured and McNutt ended the relationship with Appellant.
(RR 5:105-106).

One of Appellant’s friends helped McNutt move out of Appellant’s
apartment and into his own residence, whereupon they developed their
own relationship. (RR 5:106-107). Although the split and move out
process appeared to go comparatively smoothly, on the evening of April
18, 2021, McNutt was up early in the kitchen making coffee when she
heard what sounded like water coming off the outside of the house. (RR
5:112). She went to the opposite side of the house to check the
surveillance system. (RR 5:112). She observed Appellant moving around
outside, and when she returned to the front of the house, she smelled a
strong odor of gasoline. (RR 5:114). McNutt went outside and yelled at
Appellant, and he reached inside his pocket and pulled out a gun, but
dropped it. (RR 5:113-114). McNutt ran back inside the house, and
Appellant began firing at her. (RR 5:114). McNutt personally recognized
and identified Appellant. (RR 5:115). On camera, McNutt observed
Appellant’s vehicle leaving the scene. (RR 5:121). McNutt did not
initially report the incident to law enforcement for fear of retaliation. (RR
5:128).

Seven days later, on April 25, 2021, McNutt’s boyfriend was
awakened by a knock at the door informing him there was a fire outside.
(RR 5:129). The fire department had already been called, and the fire
was mostly put out at that point, but there was significant damage to the
house and property. (RR 5:129). The second incident was also captured
on video, and McNutt’s boyfriend was able to identify both Appellant and
his vehicle on the video. (RR 5:150-151).

Amarillo Police Department Officer Cody Moore was called to the
scene of this second incident, and identified Appellant as the suspect.
(RR 5:174, 178). Officer Moore and a partner went to Appellant’s
residence at approximately 5:00 in the morning and set up surveillance
and were successfully able to locate Appellant’s vehicle. (RR 5:188-189).
Appellant got into his vehicle, and the officers followed him until they
observed a traffic violation, and they activated their overhead emergency
lights to initiate a traffic stop. (RR 5:189). Initially, Appellant stopped
in the parking lot of Outback Steakhouse on the eastbound service road,
but the officers never observed the backup lights to the vehicle come on
indicating the vehicle was placed in park. (RR 5:190). Appellant looked
around, and then took off. (RR 5:190).

A lengthy pursuit ensued, ending with officers eventually being
able to successfully spike Appellant’s vehicle near I-40 and Washington.
(RR 5:192). At that point, a felony stop was conducted and Appellant was
taken into custody. (RR 5:203).

On June 2, 2021, Appellant was charged by indictment in Cause
No. 80,908-E-CR with the first-degree felony offense of arson of a
habitation, enhanced.

2 (CR 1:15). Also on June 2, 2021, he was also
charged by indictment in Cause No. 80,921-E-CR with the third-degree
felony offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, enhanced.
3
(CR 2:10). In another June 2, 2021, indictment, Appellant was charged
in Cause No. 80,977-E-CR with the third-degree felony offense of evading
arrest with a motor vehicle, enhanced.

4 (CR 3:10). Finally, on July 2, 2021, Appellant was also charged by indictment in Cause No. 81,045-E-
CR with the second-degree felony offense of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon. (CR 3:13). In Cause No. 81,045-E-CR, the State also
2 If it is shown on the trial of a felony of the first degree that the defendant has
previously been finally convicted of a felony other than a state jail felony punishable
under Section 12.35(a), on conviction the defendant shall be punished by
imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life, or for any term
of not more than 99 years or less than 15 years. In addition to imprisonment, an
individual may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN.
§12.42(c)(1).
3 [I]f it is shown on the trial of a felony of the third degree that the defendant has
previously been finally convicted of a felony other than a state jail felony punishable
under Section 12.35(a), on conviction the defendant shall be punished for a felony of
the second degree. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §12.42(a).
4 See note 2.
filed a notice of enhancement, using the same conviction alleged in the
other causes.5 (CR 3:17).
On October 19, 2021, Appellant filed a pro se Motion for Speedy
Trial in Cause No. 80,908-E-CR. (CR 1:33). That motion requested that
trial be set no later than October 25, 2021, or dismissed. (CR 1:33). On
November 24, 2021, a second Motion for Speedy Trial was filed in that
same cause number, and an exhibit to that motion referenced all four
cause numbers. (CR 1:44-47). That motion detailed the history of
multiple continuances granted to the State of Texas and the harm to
Appellant as a result of the delay. (CR 1:44-47). The same letter invoking
Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was also filed in Cause Nos. 80,921-E-
CR, 80,977-E-CR and 81,045-E-CR . (CR 2:21-23; 3:23-24; 4:29-30). At a
pretrial hearing on May 3, 2022, the trial court made reference to the fact
that he had previously reviewed and denied Appellant’s motion to
dismiss on speedy trial grounds. (RR 3:39). However, no prior order to
that effect appears in the record. ((RR 1:et. seq.). An order denying
5 [I]f it is shown on the trial of a felony of the second degree that the defendant has
previously been finally convicted of a felony other than a state jail felony punishable
under Section 12.35(a), on conviction the defendant shall be punished for a felony of
the first degree. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §12.42(b).
Appellant’s Motion for Speedy Trial and dismissal was entered on May 3,
2022. (CR 1:146).
Prior to trial, Appellant discharged appointed counsel and
endeavored to represent himself. (RR 2:8). However, appointed counsel
was kept as standby counsel. (RR 2:8). Appellant pled not guilty to all
of the charges and proceeded to a jury trial. (RR 5:84-86). During the
testimony of the second witness, standby counsel was substituted back in
as primary counsel. (RR 5:142).
On May 24, 2022, the jury found Appellant guilty on all four
charges. (RR 6:191). Appellant pled true to the enhancement allegations
in all four cases. (RR 7:8-10). On May 25, 2022, the jury found the
enhancement allegations to be true and assessed punishment at 99 years
confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional
Division and a $10,000.00 fine, 20 years confinement in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, 5 years
confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional
Division and a $10,000.00 fine, and 80 years confinement in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, respectively.