When Hays County voters chose Kelly Higgins in 2022, they were promised a different kind of District Attorney — one who would pursue abuse-of-power cases against public officials “without regard for status or party,” and who would build a Public Integrity Unit to ensure public servants actually serve the public. Voters remembered the phrasing because it was unambiguous:

“I will prosecute abuses of power by public officials. People in positions of authority swear an oath to serve the public. That oath carries with it a higher duty to comply with the law and apply it fairly. Corruption cannot be tolerated by the people of Hays County, and I will not tolerate it. I will prosecute abuses of power by public servants without regard for status or party. To that end, I will create a Public Integrity Unit within the DA’s Office, dedicated to ensuring that our public servants serve the public.”

Now, as Higgins closes in on year three of a four-year term, the question is simple: did he keep the promise? To answer it, The Hawk’s Eye went to the record.

How We Checked

Early this year, The Hawk’s Eye filed Public Information request with Hays County. The request sought proof that, since taking office, District Attorney Kelly Higgins or his staff had prosecuted abuse-of-power cases against public officials. We specifically asked for supporting documents for each such case, whether in the form of affidavits, indictments, or other official records maintained by the office.

The request explained that the information could help confirm whether Higgins had fulfilled his 2022 campaign promise to hold public officials accountable regardless of political affiliation. It also noted that we had been unaware of any such prosecutions since he took office, raising the question of whether records existed or whether the original campaign claim had been overstated for political effect.

Early on July 15, 2025, the county responded asking for clarification. Later that morning, we narrowed the scope to include law enforcement officials, elected officials, and higher-level government personnel such as agency attorneys and managers.

The county confirmed processing on July 17, 2025. On July 29, 2025, it issued a full release. The records named ten individuals. Five involved grand jury “no bills” in officer-involved shootings. The remaining cases included misconduct allegations against public servants, a deadly conduct indictment later dismissed at a family’s request in exchange for the permanent surrender of law enforcement credentials, and a recent jail-guard case still pending indictment.

The Five Shootings Grand Juries Cleared

1) Victoria Court, Belterra — Nov. 5, 2022 (No bill: Feb. 15, 2023)

In November 2022, just weeks before Kelly Higgins took office, a fatal shooting in the Belterra neighborhood would later become one of the first law enforcement use-of-force cases handled under his watch.

Deputy Mohmmad Zaqzouq and another Hays County Sheriff’s deputy were dispatched to the 100 block of Victoria Court on a report that an intoxicated driver had crashed a vehicle nearby and threatened a tow truck driver. When they arrived, they spoke with the vehicle’s owner, Carol James, outside her home.

The calm broke suddenly when deputies heard a woman screaming from inside the residence. Zaqzouq approached the front door. James quickly warned him, “He’s got a knife.”

Seconds later, 28-year-old John Samuel File emerged holding a large knife in his right hand. According to bodycam footage and witness statements, File advanced toward the deputy despite repeated commands to drop the weapon. Zaqzouq backed away, issuing more commands, but File continued forward.

Zaqzouq fired three shots, killing File. One round also struck James — File’s grandmother — in the arm, an injury investigators later determined was accidental.

The Texas Rangers conducted the investigation, reviewing body-worn camera video and other evidence. Their findings concluded that the deputy’s use of deadly force was justified under Texas law because File posed an immediate threat with a deadly weapon and ignored multiple lawful commands to disarm.

In early 2023, a Hays County grand jury heard the evidence and voted not to indict. By that time, Higgins had assumed office and oversaw the presentation of the case. He accepted the grand jury’s decision, and the case was closed.

2) San Marcos Apartment Shooting – Dec. 25, 2022 (No bill: May 3, 2023)

Just after midnight on Christmas Day 2022, San Marcos police officers were dispatched to an apartment complex on Barnes Drive. The call reported a disturbance involving 36-year-old Kyle Lobo, who had reportedly been drinking and was armed with a handgun.

When officers arrived, they encountered Lobo in an outdoor breezeway and saw the firearm on his waist. Upon noticing the officers, Lobo retreated upstairs while holding his young daughter in his arms. Officers followed, repeatedly urging him to allow them to take his weapon and warning him not to reach for it.

Lobo handed his daughter to another occupant of the apartment where the disturbance began. Moments later, he drew his handgun and confronted the officers. Two San Marcos police officers fired their weapons, striking Lobo. He died at the scene.

The Texas Rangers led the investigation, reviewing the officers’ body-worn camera footage and other evidence.

Lobo was a former San Marcos police officer who had resigned from the department in October 2022 after being charged with assault family violence and injury to a child. He left the department that same month in lieu of termination.

On May 23, 2023, District Attorney Kelly Higgins announced that a Hays County grand jury had reviewed the case. Jurors considered the available video evidence, witness statements, and investigative reports, and concluded the officers’ actions were justified under Texas law, which allows deadly force to protect against an immediate threat of serious harm. The panel voted not to indict.

Higgins publicly acknowledged the work of both the Texas Rangers and San Marcos Police Department, stating the matter was closed following the no-bill decision.

3) The Buda Pursuit — Sept. 5, 2023 (No bill: February 7, 2024)

Some of the September 2023 charges were later dismissed or declined for prosecution — including the two aggravated assault counts and the escape charge — while others resulted in convictions. On April 25, 2024, Elsbury was sentenced to 13 years in prison for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. That sentence was ordered to run concurrently with his prior term.

Two Buda police officers and three Hays County deputies were confirmed to have fired their weapons during the pursuit. The Texas Rangers investigated, reviewing officer body-worn camera footage, dashcam recordings, and other evidence.

On February 7, 2024, Hays County District Attorney Kelly Higgins announced that a grand jury had reviewed the incident and determined the officers’ actions were justified under Texas law. The panel issued a “no-bill,” closing the matter without indictment.

4) Hunter Creek Cove, Buda — Jan. 5, 2024 (No bill: April 4, 2024)

On a cold January morning in Buda, multiple 911 calls flooded into dispatch reporting that a man was trying to break into a home while armed with knives. Callers described him as forcefully kicking the door and threatening to kill the people inside.

Deputies from the Hays County Sheriff’s Office were dispatched at about 8:00 a.m. to Hunter Creek Cove, a quiet cul-de-sac. The man was quickly identified as 35-year-old Kenny Lee Estrada. He had a history of run-ins with law enforcement, including assault charges, multiple DWIs, and prior drug offenses.

Estrada’s target that morning was a house where a woman he had previously dated was staying with family. A doorbell camera at the home captured him wielding two large knives, repeatedly striking the front door with his foot, and shouting threats. Investigators later confirmed he had sent threatening text messages to the woman shortly before deputies arrived.

Three deputies pulled into the neighborhood in marked patrol vehicles at around 8:12 a.m. Body-worn and dash camera footage showed what happened next. As the deputies exited their vehicles, Estrada immediately advanced toward them, still armed with a knife in each hand. Commands to “stop” and “drop the weapons” were issued repeatedly. Estrada ignored all of them.

Two deputies opened fire, striking Estrada. He collapsed in the street and was pronounced dead at the scene.

The Texas Rangers led the investigation, assisted by Hays County Sheriff’s Office detectives. Surveillance footage from multiple nearby homes and the deputies’ own cameras provided a detailed account of the incident.

When the case was presented to a Hays County grand jury, jurors reviewed the evidence under Texas law, which allows officers to use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to protect themselves or others from an immediate threat. The grand jury voted to no-bill the case, finding the shooting justified.

District Attorney Kelly Higgins publicly thanked both the Texas Rangers and the Sheriff’s Office for what he described as a prompt and thorough investigation. With the grand jury’s decision, the case was closed.

5) H-E-B Parking Lot, San Marcos — Apr. 11, 2024 (No bill: Aug. 14, 2024)

On the night of April 11, 2024, a fatal police shooting unfolded in the heart of San Marcos — ending in the parking lot of the H-E-B grocery store on East Hopkins Street. The incident left 22-year-old Malachi Williams dead and sparked community questions that persisted long after the Hays County Grand Jury cleared the officer involved.

Earlier Confrontation on Hopkins Street

About an hour before the shooting, Williams had reportedly been loitering outside the Snax Max convenience store on Hopkins. Two men leaving the store noticed him trailing closely behind them in the dark as they walked home. According to their statements to police, his presence felt threatening. When they confronted him, they said Williams pulled out two large knives — one in each hand — and made verbal threats. The men called 911 immediately.

San Marcos Police Department officers responded, classified the report as an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and began searching for Williams. They had a clear description and were on alert that he might still be armed with both knives.

Second Encounter and Foot Pursuit

Around 10:35 p.m., Williams returned to the Snax Max and entered the restroom at the back of the store. Within a minute, an SMPD officer — who had already interviewed the earlier victims — arrived and waited near the front entrance. The officer asked Williams to step outside.

From that point, events escalated. Williams allegedly ignored repeated commands to turn around and put his hands behind his back. Once outside, he took off running. Several officers joined the chase. The lead officer deployed his taser twice, but both attempts missed. Officers reported that Williams was still holding the knives as he ran.

The pursuit moved northwest along Hopkins before cutting through a parking lot toward the H-E-B, which was open and occupied with customers. As Williams entered the lot, an officer fired two rounds, striking him. Officers attempted life-saving measures at the scene, but Williams died from his injuries.

Investigation and Official Determination

The Texas Rangers led the investigation with assistance from SMPD. On August 14, 2024, Hays County First Assistant District Attorney Gregg Cox announced that a grand jury reviewed the case and found the officer’s actions justified under Texas law, issuing a no-bill. The DA’s office emphasized that Williams posed an immediate threat to public safety and that the officer had to make a “difficult decision” to protect others.

Community Reaction

While no pending lawsuit was located in connection with the shooting, the incident drew public scrutiny. Local advocacy group Mano Amiga and the Caldwell/Hays Examiner publicly questioned the circumstances surrounding the pursuit and the decision to use lethal force. Community members discussed whether alternative tactics might have been possible, especially given the proximity to a busy grocery store.

Despite those concerns, the grand jury’s no-bill closed the criminal investigation, leaving the official record to stand — even as the debate over the incident’s handling continued in public forums and community meetings.

Prosecutions and Allegations Against Public Officials or Employees

This is where the promise meets the paperwork — and where the gray areas begin. A portion of the cases were inherited from the prior administration; others arose under Higgins. Outcomes range from deferred adjudication to dismissal, and one case involving on-duty allegations remains without an indictment as of publication.

Jason Michael Pence — Theft by Public Servant and Credit Card Abuse

The second case, Cause No. CR-21-3271-B, alleged a smaller but still significant set of offenses: theft by a public servant of between $750 and $2,500, and two counts of credit card abuse. The indictment alleged that on July 2–3, 2019, Pence took city-owned lumber and wasp spray without authorization, and on the same dates used a city-issued credit card to make purchases at McCoy’s Building Supply without the consent of the cardholder — the City of San Marcos itself. Each of these charges also carried the public servant enhancement.

By the time the cases reached disposition, Higgins’ administration had taken office and was responsible for prosecuting them. On January 8, 2022, Pence entered guilty pleas to all charges. In both cases, the court assessed deferred adjudication, meaning he avoided a formal conviction if he complied with strict probation terms. In the higher-dollar theft case, Pence was ordered to serve 10 years of community supervision; in the smaller theft and credit card abuse case, five years of supervision. Both cases included restitution requirements and were overseen by Judge Tanner Neidhardt in the 274th District Court.

While the thefts were not violent crimes, they struck at public trust — an issue Higgins has publicly said is central to his role as DA. In public statements, he has emphasized accountability for public officials, but in this case, his office accepted a plea agreement that avoided prison time for a former high-ranking city employee convicted of stealing from taxpayers.

The case drew local attention not only because of the dollar amounts involved, but because of the optics: a public servant accused of siphoning off materials and funds from the very city he was entrusted to serve. Though no public press release accompanied the resolution, the case files remain in the Hays County court record, quietly marking the end of Pence’s municipal career.

Kyle W. Taylor — Alleged Bribery as a Public Servant

Under District Attorney Kelly Higgins’ tenure, a Hays County Grand Jury on July 24, 2024, indicted 62-year-old Kyle W. Taylor on a second-degree felony bribery charge. According to the indictment, Taylor was employed as a maintenance technician with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice at the Kyle Unit when, on or about September 22, 2022, he allegedly accepted U.S. currency from an individual identified as Jennifer Marquez. Prosecutors allege the payment was made in exchange for Taylor violating his legal duty by allowing contraband to be introduced into the prison facility.

The case, prosecuted by Higgins’ office, is pending in the 453rd District Court, with an arraignment scheduled in the coming weeks.

Isaiah Garcia — Indicted for Deadly Conduct in the Joshua Wright Shooting; Case Later Dismissed at Family’s Request

The December 2022 shooting of 36-year-old Joshua Wright inside Ascension Seton Hays Hospital in Kyle became one of the most high-profile tests of Kelly Higgins’ campaign promise to hold public officials accountable — especially in use-of-force incidents.

Wright had been in the Hays County Jail and was taken to the hospital after reporting medical problems. Surveillance and body-worn camera footage showed him trying to leave while under guard. Moments later, then–Hays County corrections officer Isaiah Garcia fired multiple rounds in the emergency room hallway, killing Wright. Wright was in leg irons, unarmed, and within view of hospital staff and patients.

When a Hays County grand jury reviewed the case, it declined to indict for murder or manslaughter but did return a charge of third-degree felony deadly conduct — a rare criminal indictment against a local law enforcement officer for an on-duty shooting.

The case landed squarely on Higgins’ desk. In June 2024, after months of pretrial proceedings, he dismissed the deadly conduct charge. Higgins’ office said the decision came after extensive conversations with Wright’s family and weighing “public safety and fundamental fairness.” As part of the agreement, Garcia surrendered his corrections officer license and pledged never to work in the field again.

The dismissal did not end the matter. On July 27, 2023, Beverly Wright and Isabel Olivo Salinas filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin), Case No. 1:23-cv-00864-DAE. The suit alleges Garcia used excessive and unnecessary deadly force, violating Wright’s constitutional rights. It remains active today, with the most recent filing — Garcia’s motion for summary judgment — entered on August 6, 2025.

The case drew significant community attention, with advocacy group Mano Amiga and the Caldwell/Hays Examiner pressing for full transparency and accountability.

Yobana Ofelia Solano-Sequeira — Tampering with Government Records (HCTACO)

John Paul Duran — Alleged False Statements in Hiring File; Alleged On-Duty Official Oppression

The latest case tied to Hays County District Attorney Kelly Higgins’ record involves former Hays County corrections officer John Paul Duran, who faces two separate criminal allegations — one for Official Oppression and another for Tampering with a Government Record. As of now, neither charge has resulted in an indictment, but the case remains active and under review, placing it squarely within the scope of Higgins’ campaign pledge to prosecute abuse of authority.

According to affidavits filed by the Hays County Sheriff’s Office, the Official Oppression charge stems from an April 1, 2025, incident inside the county jail’s medical housing unit. Investigators allege Duran instructed a female inmate to take a shower while he monitored the feed from the shower area on a surveillance screen. Security camera footage reportedly captured audio of Duran tapping on the unit’s window and telling the inmate “shower,” as well as movements suggesting he was visually directing her to a specific stall. The inmate later told investigators she performed sexual acts under the camera because she felt pressured by his position and authority.

The second charge — Tampering with a Government Record — focuses on Duran’s 2022 employment application to the Sheriff’s Office. Detectives say Duran failed to disclose that he resigned from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice while under investigation for multiple policy violations at Travis State Jail, including trafficking contraband, allowing an inmate to cut his hair, and refusing to cooperate with an official inquiry. The application, investigators allege, falsely indicated he had never been the subject of an internal investigation and that he was eligible for rehire.

Both warrants were issued in April 2025, but the cases have yet to move forward to indictment.

With a grand jury presentation still pending, the Duran case serves as another marker for the public to gauge whether Higgins’ handling of such matters matches the prosecutorial stance he promised voters.

What a “No Bill” Actually Means — and Why It Matters Here

Texas grand juries do not decide guilt or innocence. They decide whether there’s probable cause to charge. A “no bill” means grand jurors chose not to indict based on what was presented. The DA’s office decides what to present, how to frame it, and whether to send it to the grand jury at all. In officer-involved shootings, no bills are common statewide, particularly where video shows overt threats (e.g., a suspect with knives advancing on officers) or statutory justifications (like preventing escape).

For readers evaluating Higgins’ promise, the distinction is key: presenting a case to a grand jury that later no-bills may reflect a process that reviewed officer conduct — but it is not the same thing as prosecuting an abuse of power to conviction. In five fatal shootings in this packet, grand juries cleared the officers.

So — Is the Promise Being Kept?

Higgins campaigned on prosecuting abuses of power “without regard for status or party” and pledged to create a Public Integrity Unit to handle such cases. The public record we obtained under open records laws shows:

• Five officer-involved fatal shootings were presented to grand juries — all returned no-bills.
• A public-servant theft case (Pence) that began before Higgins took office ended with deferred terms during his tenure.
• A rare deadly conduct indictment against an on-duty officer (Garcia) was later dismissed at the victim family’s request, paired with a permanent surrender of his peace officer license.
• A tampering case (Solano-Sequeira) ended in a guilty plea with deferred sentencing.
• A jail-guard case (Duran) alleging false statements in hiring and official oppression remains un-indicted as of now.
• A bribery allegation (Taylor) resulted in a grand jury indictment; the final resolution is not included in the DA’s publicly released materials.
• A civil rights lawsuit (Wright/Olivo Salinas v. Garcia) tied to a law enforcement incident under Higgins’ watch is still pending, with a summary judgment motion currently in play.

Supporters will argue Higgins took politically sensitive officer-involved shootings to grand juries rather than burying them, charged deadly conduct in a hospital shooting, resolved an older theft case, and obtained a permanent credential surrender in a case the victims asked to close. Critics will point to the lack of new marquee indictments against high-ranking officials, the reliance on deferred outcomes, the consistent no-bills in fatal-force cases, and the continued limbo of a jail misconduct case that seems primed for a charging decision.

What the Ten Cases Say — and Don’t Say — About the Promise

Over the course of these ten cases, Kelly Higgins’ tenure as Hays County Criminal District Attorney has been tested repeatedly on the very promise that helped put him in office: holding public officials accountable when they abuse their authority.

What They Say

The record shows that Higgins has, at least procedurally, been willing to take on a variety of misconduct allegations against government employees — from deadly police shootings to bribery in the ranks, from tampering with records to excessive force in the jail. His office has presented multiple high-profile cases to grand juries, allowing citizen panels to weigh the evidence rather than quietly shelving them.

There have been measurable actions: indictments in certain cases, guilty pleas in others, and, in at least one instance, a negotiated agreement that permanently removed an officer from law enforcement. These outcomes show that Higgins has not categorically shielded public employees from prosecution and that some cases have led to real consequences.

Several matters remain open, including active criminal charges and ongoing federal civil rights litigation. This means his record is not yet complete, and the story of whether he fulfills his promise is still being written.

What They Don’t Say

Yet, the cases also reveal gaps. Few have ended with criminal convictions at trial. Many of the most contentious incidents — especially officer-involved shootings — resulted in no-bills from grand juries. In others, charges were dismissed or resolved through deferred adjudication, leaving critics to question whether these outcomes deliver the kind of accountability voters expected.

The cases do not show a DA’s office aggressively pushing for the maximum possible sanctions in every instance. Instead, they often reflect careful, legally conservative decision-making that some see as prudent, and others view as political hedging.

Nor do the outcomes represent a complete break from the patterns of past Hays County prosecutors. While Higgins has brought certain cases forward, the results — no-bills, plea deals, dismissals — are not dramatically different from the office’s historical handling of official misconduct.

The Cases Not Taken

Perhaps just as important as the cases Higgins pursued are those he didn’t. Advocates point to allegations of misconduct in smaller municipalities, unresolved complaints of officer brutality, and certain in-custody death cases that never saw a public charging decision. In these matters, no grand jury presentation was announced, no public statement explained the reasoning, and no visible prosecutorial action occurred.

By declining to take on — or even publicly acknowledge — certain controversial incidents, Higgins has left unanswered questions about whether his office applies the same scrutiny across the board or selectively focuses on cases where the political and legal risk is more manageable. These omissions, critics argue, may be as revealing as the prosecutions that did happen.

The Verdict So Far

If Higgins’ campaign promise was to open the doors for scrutiny and give misconduct cases a public airing, the record suggests he has done that — for some cases. If the promise was to secure convictions and set a new standard for prosecuting public officials, the evidence from these ten cases, and from the matters left unaddressed, leaves room for debate.

Ultimately, the final judgment on Higgins’ tenure may not be written by prosecutors, defense lawyers, or even grand juries — but by voters, who will decide whether the handling and non-handling of these cases lived up to the pledge that helped elect him.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing on the 772 arrest notifications TCOLE received in 2024..

Or you may find our publishing on a newly elected Texas sheriff’s battle with TCOLE over the accuracy of his personal history statement of interest.  

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---