IN THE COUNTY COURT IN RE: SUA SPONTE ORDER APPOINTING ATTORNEY PRO TEM AT LAW nnn HOOD COUNTY, TEXAS SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING ATTORNEY PRO TEM NOW COMES this honorable Court, and upon its own motion and having determined the following: 1. Governor Greg Abbott issued a disaster proclamation on March 15, 2020 under Section 418.014 of the Texas Government Code declaring that the Novel Corona Virus posed an imminent threat of disaster for all 254 counties in Texas, inclusive of course, of Hood County. 2. Governor Greg Abbott issued further Executive Orders in response to COVID19 designed to protect the health and safety of all Texans. 3. On April 27, 2020, Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Orders reopening portions of certain Texas businesses and ordering that some ‘enumerated businesses remain closed until May 15, 2020, subject to further extensions. 4. On or about April 28, 2020, the duly elected County Attorney, Matthew Mills confirmed that he would not prosecute ANY complaint filed by Hood County Law Enforcement seeking the enforcement of the Governor of Texas Executive Orders, claiming unilaterally and in an unadjudicated manner that the Executive Orders of the Governor were “unjust” and “unconstitutional”.5. Section 418.011 of the Texas Government Code grants the Governor broad authority to meet the dangers to the State and it’s people Presented by a disaster. Further, Section 418.012 grants to the Governor the power to issue Executive Orders and such orders have the force and effect of law. Further, Section 418.173 of the Texas Government Code sets out criminal sanctions for a failure to comply with any Executive Order issued during the proclaimed disaster and sets a punishment for such failures as a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 and confinement in jail not to exceed six (6) months or both. 6. The punishment range places any alleged offense squarely in the jurisdiction of the Hood County Court at Law. 7. Senate Bill 341 effective September 1, 2019 regulates the appointment of an attorney pro tem for certain criminal proceedings. Section 2.07(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states in relevant parts as follows: “(a) Whenever an attorney for the state is disqualified to act in any case or proceeding, is absent from the county or district, or is otherwise unable to perform the duties of the attorney's office, or in any instance where there is no attorney for the state, the Judge of the court in which the attorney represents the state may appoint any County or District attorney for the state, or may appoint an assistant Attorney General.” (Exhibit A) 8. On April 28, 2020 the County Attorney on the record indicated that neither he nor any assistant in his office would prosecute offenses filed by Hood County Law Enforcement alleging violations of GovernorAbbott's Executive Orders. The court then clearly asked the County Attorney as follows: Court: “So, we don’t have a state's attorney to represent the state on those complaints>” Mr Mil : “Right, if there are any”. (Exhibit B) . The Court further finds that after the County Attorney publicly announced that his office would not prosecute any violation of Governor Abbott's GA-18 Executive Orders, or any Executive Order restricting the public operations of certain businesses for the protection of the public, the County Attorney on April 28, 2020 by his own admission apparently drove to the location of a restricted business in Hood County, Texas to support its reopening in violation of the Governor's Executive Order. County Attorney Mills was present when such business opened and became a material witness to a potential violation of the Governor's Executive Order. Additionally, County Attorney Mills communicated, on behalf of a potential defendant, with the local media, and by doing so inextricably intertwined himself in a potential criminal offense. His actions have now created a irreconcilable conflict of interest which makes him and his entire office disqualified to represent the state in matters concerning the prosecution of any violation of GA-18 or any Executive Order issued by Governor Abbott concerning the COVID19 pandemic (Exhibit C). Additionally, County Attorney Matt Mills, by his acts and omissions may well have placed himself in jeopardy under Chapter 7 of the Texas Penal Code, Section 7.02(a)(2) should it be shown that acting withintent to promote or assist the commission of an offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense of violating the Governor's Executive Order. As a potential defendant County Attorney Mills is disqualified to represent the State in all matters arising from any violations of Governor Abbott's Executive Order, therefore, appointment of an Attorney Pro Tem is required. (Exhibit D) The Court therefore finds that the County Attorney Matt Mills 1) is disqualified due to conflict of interest, 2) unable to perform the duties of the attorney's office as they relate to enforcement of Governor Abbott's Executive Orders and 3) that there is no attorney for the State as clearly set out in the trial court’s record in such matters. The Court therefore hereby appoints Hood County District Attorney Ryan Sinclair as Attorney Pro Tem to, within his sole discretion, review complaints, file criminal charges, and prosecute any and all complaints filed pursuant to Governor Greg Abbott's executive orders issued in response to the COVID19 pandemic. SIGNED THIS _3_ DAY OF May —___ 20:28 VINCENT J. MESSINA JUDGE PRESIDINGEXHIBIT Aill Text: TX SB341 | 2019-2020 | 86th Legislature | Engrossed hups:/legiscan.com/TX/tex'$B34 1/id/1991097 i = Bill Text: TX SB341 | 2019-2020 | 86th Legislatu Texas Senate Bill 341 (Adjourned Sine Die) NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft Bill Title: Relating to the appointment of an attorney pro tem for certain criminal proceedings. Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 2-0) Status: (Passed) 2019-06-10 - Effective on 9/1/19 [S8341 Detail] Download: Texas-2019-SB341-Engrossed. htm! Df an attorney pro tem for certain THE STATE OF TEXAS b-1), and (d), Cod form the du {the officeBill Text: TX SB341 | 2019-2020 | 86th Legislature | Engrossed | L. bups:/Mlegiscan.com/TX/text/SB341/id/1991097 during the absence or disqualification of the attorney for the state. (b) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, [if-sAs ] the duties of the appointed office are additional duties of fe entitled to additional compensation. i present office, and [s3] is not prevent a commissioners court of a county from contracting with another commissioners court to pay expenses and reimburse compensation paid by a county to an attorney (#=+-ss# who is appointed to perform additional duties. (b-1) An attorney for the state who is not disqualified to act may request che court to permit t ] in a case for good cause and approval by the court is disqualified {d) In this article, “attorney for the state” means a county attorney , a district attorney, or a criminal district attorney. SECTION 2. Arti 2 $2.09{c}, Code of Criminal Proceduce, is amended to read as follows: ici An attorney pro ter appo:nted unger Article 92.0119) [nF is entitled to compensation in the same manner as an attorney [eens a +]. The trict judge shall sex the compensation of tne attorney pro tem based on the sworn testimony of the attorney or other evidence that is given in open court. SECTION 3. Section 574.004, Government Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 574.004. ASSISTANCE BY ATTORNEY GENERAL. t general from providing assistance to district attorneys, criminal chapter prevent the attorney district attorneys, and county attorneys on request by allowing assistant attorneys general to serve as duly appointed and deputized assistant prosecutors, nor this chapterSill Text! TX SB341'| 2019-2020 | 86th Legislature | Engrossed | ‘hups:/Megiscan.com/TX/tex/SB34 I/id/1991097 prohibit the appointment of an assistant attorney general as an attorney pro tem pursuant to Article 2.07, Code of Criminal Procedure. SECTION 4. Articles 2.07(c), (el, (£), and (g), Code of Criminal Procedure, are repealed. SECTION 5, The change in law made by this Act in amending Article 2.07, Code of Criminal Procedure, applies only to the appointment of an attorney pro tem that occurs on or after the effective date of this Act. The appointment of an attorney pro tem that occurs before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the attorney pro tem was appointed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2019.EXHIBIT B10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Open court) THE COURT: Mr. Mills, you will or will not be prosecuting Class B misdemeanors under GA-16? MR. MILLS: Oh. Right. I -- I will not. THE COURT: Will not. Now, just like Katie Lang did when she didn't issue marriage licenses, she designated her assistants to do the same. Are you designating any of your assistants? MR. MILL! No, I am not. THE COURT: Nobody? MR. MILLS: Right. THE COURT: Nobody in your office is going to prosecute those cases, correct? MR. MILLS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: So I read that right? MR. MILLS: You did read that right. THE COURT: I read it right. I just didn't read that ‘nobody in your office.' So we don't have a state attorney to represent the State on those complaints? MR. MILLS: Right, if there are any. THE COURT: If there are any. MR. MILLS: Right. THE COURT: Okay. That's all I needed to know. Thank you. MR. MILLS: Thanks. Ex &EXHIBIT CMore than a newspaper. A Hood County legend since 1886 Hood Count Saray Maye Handcuffed City: Police stymied by Mills' refusal to prosecute violators of shutdown Judge taps special prosecutor to sidestep county attorney Despite Mills, city could shut down businesses violating orders+ DA will handle any’ violation cases Firefighters honored Highway project tohold up traffic smile back! Quail Park of Granbury j Sareea eS Pes Pearl Dentures | ,Xethernet. ‘ond Dental Care 915 W. Pees SI. B17-S7XRAYS I may forget what you s: | may forget what you did; But | will never forget how you made me feel. juail BY 4 (682) 498-3201 2300 Paluxy Highway Located in Beautiful GranburyEXHIBIT DPENAL CODE CHAPTER 7, CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY F. hhaps://statutes. capitol texas gov/Does/PE/htm PE. 7.htma PENAL CODE TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY CHAPTER 7. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER SUBCHAPTER A. COMPLICITY Sec. 7.01. PARTIES TO OFFENSES. (a) A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or by both. (b) Each party to an offense may be charged with commission of the offense. (c) All traditional distinctions between accomplices and principals are abolished by this section, and each party to an offense may be charged and convicted without alleging that he acted as a principal or accomplice Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. eff. Jan. 1, 1974 Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: (1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense (2), acting with intent to promote or assist thelcommission ” gf the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to — caid-the other person to commit the offense; or (3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense. (b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, allPENAL CODE CHAPTER 7. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY F. conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Sec. 7.03. DEFENSES EXCLUDED. In a prosecution in which an actor's criminal responsibility is based on the conduct of another, the actor may be convicted on proof of commission of the offense and that he was a party to its commission, and it is no defens (1) that the actor belongs to a class of persons that by definition of the offense is legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity; or (2) that the person for whose conduct the actor is criminally responsible has been acquitted, has not been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense or of a different type or class of offense, or is immune from prosecution. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. SUBCHAPTER B. CORPORATIONS, ASSOCIATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, AND OTHER BUSINESS ENTITIES Sec. 7.21. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter: (1) “Agent” means a director, officer, employee, or other person authorized to act in behalf of a corporation, an association, a limited liability company, or another business entity. (1-a) "Business entity” means an entity or organization governed by the Business Organizations Code, other than a corporation, association, or limited liability company. (2) “High managerial agen (A) a partner in a partnership; means (B) an officer of a corporation, an association, a limited liability company, or another business entity;>ENAL CODE CHAPTER 7. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY F. bhups://statutes.capitol.texas.gow/Docs/PE/htnPE.7.htm (C) an agent of a corporation, an association, a limited liability company, or another business entity who has duties of such responsibility that the agent's conduct reasonably may be assumed to represent the policy of the corporation, association, limited liability*company, or other business entity. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by: Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 112 (S.B. 1258), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2019. Sec. 7.22. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, OR OTHER BUSINESS ENTITY. (a) If conduct constituting an offense is performed by an agent acting in behalf of a corporation, an association, a limited liability company, or another business entity and within the scope of the agent's office or employment, the corporation, association, limited liability company, or other business entity is criminally responsible for an offense defined: (1) in this code where corporations, associations, limited liability companies, and other business entities are made subject thereto; (2) by law other than this code in which a legislative purpose to impose criminal responsibility on corporations, associations, limited liability companies, and other business entities plainly appears; or (3) by law other than this code for which strict liability is imposed, unless a legislative purpose not to impose criminal responsibility on corporations, associations, limited liability companies, or other business entities plainly appears. (b) A corporation, an association, a limited liability company, or another business entity is criminally responsible for a felony offense only if its commission was authorized, requested, commanded, performed, or recklessly tolerated b! (1) a majority of the governing body acting in behalf of the corporation, association, limited liability company, or otherPENAL CODE CHAPTER 7. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY F. ‘nups:/statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.7.him business entity; or (2) a high managerial agent acting in behalf of the corporation, association, limited liability company, or other business entity and within the scope of the agent's office or employment. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by: Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 112 (S.B. 1258), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2019. Sec. 7.23. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF PERSON FOR CONDUCT IN BEHALF OF CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, OR OTHER BUSINESS ENTITY. (a) An individual is criminally responsible for conduct that the individual performs in the name of or in behalf of a corporation, an association, a limited liability company, or another business entity to the same extent as if the conduct were performed in the individual's own name or behalf. {b) An agent having primary responsibility for the discharge of a duty to act imposed by law on a corporation, an association, a limited liability company, or another business entity is criminally responsible for omission to discharge the duty to the same extent as if the duty were imposed by law directly on the agent. (c) If an individual is convicted of conduct constituting an offense performed in the name of or on behalf of a corporation, an association, a limited liability company, or another business entity, the individual is subject to the sentence authorized by law for an individual convicted of the offense. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by: Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 112 (S.B. 1258), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2019. Sec. 7.24. DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION,2ENAL CODE CHAPTER 7. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY F.. Jnups://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htnv/PE. 7 atm ASSOCIATION, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, OR OTHER BUSINESS ENTITY. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of a corporation, an association, a limited liability company, or another business entity junder Section 7.22(a)(1) or (a)(2) that the high managerial agent “having supervisory responsibility over the subject matter of the offense employed due diligence to prevent its commission. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by: Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 112 (S.B. 1258), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2019.