Van Horn, Frederick William, AP-77,061

State of Texas v. Frederick-William Van Horn in Ellis County Court at Law No. 2, docket WRIT 1001; accelerated appeal of a September 9 order denying a plea to jurisdiction.
Defendant seeks certification of the right to appeal under TRAP 25.2 and CCP article 44.02, contending lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Matter centers on denial of a petition for writ of prohibition challenging jurisdiction; appeal from an interlocutory order is sought.
Defendant argues the State lacks standing and authority to prosecute, asserting fundamental jurisdictional defects and rights violations.
Defendant filed motions and notices on October 1, 2015, pro se, requesting certification and relief, including termination of the action.
The record includes certification of service and multiple docket entries relating to the writ and certification efforts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is defendant entitled to certification of right to appeal from the denial of jurisdiction?	State contends certification is appropriate to permit appellate review.	Van Horn asserts lack of jurisdiction and wants immediate termination of the action.	No explicit holding provided on certification yet.
Whether a plea to the jurisdiction was properly challenged and appealable as an interlocutory matter	State maintains interlocutory review procedures apply where permitted by statute.	Van Horn argues lack of jurisdiction defeats the action and permits immediate appeal.	Interlocutory appeal procedures discussed; no definitive disposition in provided text.
Whether the accelerated appeal under TRAP 25.2 applies to a denial of a plea to jurisdiction	State relies on TRAP 25.2 for expedited appeal rights.	Van Horn seeks expedited review due to lack of jurisdiction.	Discussion of accelerated appeal framework; no final ruling in excerpt.
Whether the State has standing to prosecute or whether there is a lack of a damaged party	State asserts prosecutorial standing and jurisdiction.	Van Horn contends no injury or standing to prosecute.	No determination in excerpt; argument summarized.
Remedy sought: termination of criminal action or certification of right to appeal, and damages	Van Horn seeks termination or appellate certification; seeks damages later.	N/A beyond relief sought by motion.	Relief sought identified; no final disposition shown in excerpt.

Texas Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (jurisdiction challenges and standard for pleadings)
Bland ISD v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (standing and subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (plea to the jurisdiction; lack of jurisdiction can be raised anytime)
Sivley v. Sivley, 972 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1998) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; fundamental error)
M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. Novak, 52 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. 2001) (standing and jurisdiction issues in pleadings)
Garcia v. State, 634 S.W.2d 888 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1982) (presumption of innocence; due process considerations)