Brandon W. Barnett | Criminal Defense Attorney | Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC

Apr 18

4

Stopped at Canada border for DWI conviction

Crossing the Canadian Border with a Texas DWI Conviction

By Brandon Barnett | DWI

Traveling to Canada, Eh? Travel Plans for Some Americans May Be Foiled as Canada Cracks Down on DWI Arrests and Convictions

Stopped at Canada border for DWI conviction Do you have a DWI conviction in Texas (or anywhere in the United States)? Are you traveling to Canada any time soon? If you answered “Yes” to both of these questions, you may be in for a surprise at the border. Even if you have recently been acquitted of a DWI charge, you may still be turned away and deemed “criminally inadmissible for entry.” This article will explain the law and provide some solutions if you find yourself in this dilemma.

Canada’s Immigration Laws Create Anxiety for Americans with DWI Charges

Recently, Canada enacted strict immigration laws making entry into the country by car, plane, train or boat more difficult for United States passport holders who have a DWI arrest or conviction on their record. Regardless of whether the arrest or conviction was a misdemeanor charge, whether you plan to drive while in Canada, or whether the charge happened when you were a juvenile, any DWI charge at all could cause you to be turned away at the border, further damaging chances for success in all Canadian immigration programs for life. Bottom line: travelers with any type of DWI arrest or conviction will face enhanced scrutiny by the border patrol and must comply with additional legal requirements set forth by the Canadian government for entry. It is a better strategy to be proactive and prepared before traveling, instead of reactive and defensive once “caught” at the border.

Unlike the division between federal and state powers in the United States with regard to law enforcement, Canadian criminal law is solely a federal responsibility. As a result, criminal laws are uniformly interpreted and enforced throughout all of the Canadian provinces. Traveling to a different province in the hope of more leniency because of different criminal laws will not be helpful.

The federal Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) governs immigration admissibility into Canada. Section 36(b)-(c) of IRPA states, “a permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for having been convicted of an offense [or committing an act] outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offense under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years.” Basically, IRPA converts any DWI charge or conviction from the United States into a “serious criminal offense” in Canada and allows Canadian authorities to deny entry into the country at border checkpoints on roads, railways, airports, and maritime ports.

Generally speaking, Canada views DWI offenses—even minor offenses—very seriously. However, there are a few options available for travelers who have a DWI on their record. If a traveler wishes to apply for relief, Canadian officials will assess the following: number and type of offense(s), when the sentencing for the offense(s) was completed, and the severity of the offense(s). The three solutions below are the most popular options for relief for travelers with DWI history, however, they are not an exhaustive list of all of the application and appeals procedures, so please consult an attorney for specific details on your particular case.

Solutions For Gaining Permission to Enter Canada with a DWI

Option 1: The Temporary Resident Permit (“TRP”)

The TRP allows a traveler with a DWI to gain entry Canada on a temporary basis. The permit can be issued for any length of stay, up to a period of three years, and the traveler must state the reason for the visit (for example, family or school). Travelers should apply for the TRP if their most recent offense occurred within the last five years. According to the Canadian Immigration Newsletter, this type of permit may take six months to a year to process.

Option 2: Criminal Rehabilitation

Travelers seeking to permanently resolve their inadmissibility issues can apply for Criminal Rehabilitation. Essentially, the traveler with a DWI charge or conviction is asking the Canadian government to forgive their DWI history. In order to be eligible, more than 5 years must have passed since the completion of one’s most recent sentence (which may have included alcohol classes, counseling, fines, jail or prison time, community service, community supervision, driving courses, probation, etc.). Rehabilitation applications can take a year or more to process. It is possible to have a TRP while one is applying for Permanent Criminal Rehabilitation, so that one has the ability to travel to Canada in the interim while waiting on the resolution of the Criminal Rehabilitation application.

Option 3: Deemed Rehabilitation

If a traveler has only one single DWI conviction where more than 10 years have passed from completion of the full sentence (for example jail or prison time, fines paid, reinstatement of driver’s license, etc), an individual may be deemed rehabilitated by virtue of the time that has elapsed. However, even if you fit this category, it is probably still a good idea to have prepared an affidavit or letter explaining the incident to Canadian border officials because full disclosure is critical to overcoming the barriers to entry. Trying to hide a conviction or denying altogether that you have one are sure fire ways to be denied entry permanently into the country.

Getting into Canada with a DWI is not as easy as showing up to the border checkpoint with a valid passport and a smile. Don’t be caught by surprise at the border! To increase your chances of admissibility into Canada, it is a good idea to talk with an attorney who will help you take the proactive steps before your trip so that you have the greatest possible chance of gaining approval for entry.

Apr 08

1

A Fast Miranda Warning is No Warning at All

By Brandon Barnett | Miranda

Baiza v. State | How Slowly Should an Officer Read Miranda Warnings?

Police Officer Miranda Warnings Texas We all know that the police must read the Miranda warnings before they question someone that is under arrest. But what does that look like in a practical sense? Can the officer read the Miranda warnings like the side effect warnings in a prescription drug commercial, where we can’t understand them? Or does he have to read them slowly, ensuring that the person being questioned fully understands each provision? This issue recently came up in Baiza v. State, an appellate case in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Gregory Baiza was convicted for sexual assault of his wife and sentenced to twelve years in prison. Baiza was in a common-law marriage with his wife and had two children together. There was an argument between the two when Baiza found out that his wife was pregnant with their third child. Baiza’s wife claims that Baiza forced himself on her after this argument. Eventually the police were called on the scene.

After Baiza’s wife left for the hospital, she decided to press charges on Baiza. A detective came over to get a statement from Gregory Baiza but he refused. The detective then placed Baiza under arrest. Baiza, however, admitted during the second recorded statement that his wife told him to stop but that he kept going – a statement that would ultimately lead to his conviction for rape at trial.

Baiza argued to the Eleventh Court of Appeals that this admission during the recorded statement should not have been allowed into evidence at the trial court. Baiza argued that when the detective read Baiza the Miranda warnings, he read them so fast that they were unintelligible. Specifically, Baiza argued that he did not hear the warning that he was allowed to terminate the interview at any time.

Strict Compliance with Miranda Rules Not Required, But the Reading of Rights Must be Intelligible

In reviewing this issue, the Eleventh Circuit notes that strict compliance with the Miranda rules is not required, but rather a “substantial compliance” will suffice. “Thus, the warnings given to an accused are effective even if not given verbatim, so long as they convey the ‘fully effective equivalent’ of the warnings.” In order for an admission to be allowed in court, the warnings must also be on the recording. The court listened to the recording to determine if the detective gave the prescribed warnings to Baiza. The detective read the warnings from a card to Baiza. The court slowed down the audio and determined that the detective did in fact inform Baiza that he has the right to terminate the interview. However, the Eleventh Circuit determined that when played at actual speed, the “right to terminate” warning is unintelligible.

The Eleventh Circuit determined that because the “right to terminate” warning was unintelligible, that the warnings were not given and that the trial court erred when it allowed the admission into evidence. The Court then went on to find that they did not have fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury or that the error influenced the jury only slightly by incorrectly allowing this admission into evidence. For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.

It is very difficult to get a case overturned, even when evidence has been incorrectly admitted. But here, the Court finds that even though the detective read Baiza his Miranda warnings, reading them so quickly as to make a key part unintelligible was enough to keep out an admission by Baiza from evidence. Specifically, the court finds that the “right to terminate” is a crucial part of the Miranda warnings and that a detective or officer cannot read them so quickly as to make them unintelligible or any admission shall not be admitted into evidence.

Read the full opinion in Baiza v. State.

Mar 31

3

Tarrant County Starts New Misdemeanor DWI Court Program

By Brandon Barnett | DWI

Judge Deborah Nekhom to preside over Tarrant County’s new DWI Court Program for Misdemeanor DWI Cases

Tarrant County DWI Court Nekhom Tarrant County has many specialty court programs for various types of criminal cases, but for DWI cases, the only specialty program available was limited to felony-level cases – the Felony Alcohol Intervention Program (FAIP). Not anymore. After much debate, Tarrant County started a new specialty court designed for misdemeanor DWI cases (it is not currently listed on the county’s website). The program officially began on March 30, 2016. Judge Deborah Nekhom in County Criminal Court 4 is the presiding judge over the new DWI Court and she is dedicated to making it a success.

DWI Court is Designed for High-Risk / High-Need Offenders

The goal of the new DWI Court is to identify high-risk DWI defendants and intervene so that they do not end up with a felony DWI down the road. With the help of defense attorneys and clinical specialists, the program seeks to identify defendants with significant substance abuse issues, who are in need of serious help. While the specifics of the program are still being ironed out, our firm has been told that there will be strict oversight and accountability for all participants so that they can have the best chance of successfully completing the program and their DWI probation.

What are the benefits of the Tarrant County DWI Court?

The main benefit of participating in the new DWI Court is that participants will receive the counseling and support they need to overcome their addiction and live a health, productive, alcohol-free and drug-free lifestyle. In addition, some of the following benefits have been discussed and are being implemented:

Probation time is reduced after completion of the program, allowing participants to enter into a non-reporting status;
Waiver of DWI fines (up to $4,000)
No program fees
*Dismissal of the underlying DWI charge and allowance for a Non-Disclosure (*this expires on 1/1/17 with changes to the Texas Government Code)

Several other benefits are being considered and are not ripe for public discussion at this point.

How Do I Get a Client into the DWI Court?

If you have a client that would be a good candidate for misdemeanor DWI Court, you should get him or her an assessment ASAP to determine whether they are classified as high-risk / high-need. You should then discuss the option of DWI court with the presiding judge of your client’s DWI case. If, after seeing the assessment, the judge agrees that DWI court is a good option, he or she will transfer the case to CCC4 after your clients enters a plea of guilty to the DWI.

Contact Us for More Information About DWI Court

I realize that this article does not provide a lot in the way of specifics about the new program, but it only started yesterday and there are not a lot of specifics to publish at this point. If you have some questions, our DWI defense attorneys would be happy to answer them if we can. Contact our office at (817) 993-9249.

Mar 30

1

Supreme Court Rules Feds Cannot Seize Untainted Assets Needed for Attorney Fees

By Brandon Barnett | Asset Forfeiture

In Luis v. United States, the Supreme Court Addressed Whether and to What Extent, Federal Authorities Can Seize Assets Unrelated to Criminal Activity.

Frozen Assets Attorneys Fees Many federal defendants have been in the position of needing to hire an attorney but having all of their assets frozen. Not anymore. The United States Supreme Court ruled this week that the federal government cannot, before trial, seize the assets of the defendant if those assets are unrelated to the criminal allegation and are needed to fund a defense attorney.

See Luis v United States (US S.Ct. 2016)

Luis v. United States – Case Background

In Luis, a Miami woman named Sila Luis was accused of Medicare and banking fraud. The criminal charges alleged that she illegally used kickbacks and other criminal schemes to fraudulently obtain over $45 million. Luis only had $2 million left when federal prosecutors obtained a court order seizing all of her assets — both those assets related to the crime and those unrelated to it. She challenged the federal seizure order arguing that she needed the unrelated (untainted) assets in order to retain an attorney for her trial.

A majority of Supreme Court justices agreed with Luis. that allowing the government to take her untainted assets would violate her Sixth Amendment right to counsel of her choice.

When Can the Federal Government Seize a Defendant’s Assets?

18 U.S. Code Section 1345(a)(2) provides that a court may freeze before trial certain assets belonging to a defendant accused of violations of federal health care or banking laws. Those assets include (1) property “obtained as a result of” the crime, (2) property “traceable” to the crime, and (3), as relevant here, other “property of equivalent value.”

Writing for four of the justices, Justice Stephen Breyer explained that the frozen assets

belongs to the defendant, pure and simple.” He added that, as a practical matter, to accept the government’s position could have grave consequences for a defendant who is actually innocent, whose assets are all untainted and, if seized, would leave the defendant without her lawyer of choice to defend against meritless charges.

He went on, “[t]o permit the Government to freeze Luis’ untainted assets” in this case, Breyer wrote, “would unleash a principle of constitutional law that would have no obvious stopping place.”

Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Sotomayor joined the Justice Breyer’s opinion. Justice Thomas wrote separately, with a slightly different analysis, explaining that the 6th Amendment right to counsel of choice would be meaningless if we did not allow a defendant to use his or her property to pay for that attorney.

Justices Kennedy and Alito dissented and would hold that there is no real way to distinguish between tainted and untainted assets since money is fungible.

TAKEAWAY: The government may not seize assets in a federal case if the assets are not connected to the alleged criminal activity and if those assets are needed to hire an attorney for the defense.

Mar 29

1

What is Jury Unanimity for Aggregate Theft Cases?

By Brandon Barnett | Jury Trial, Theft

Jury Unanimity Aggregate Theft Texas Jury unanimity is required in every jury trial, whether it be felony or misdemeanor. This means that the jury must unanimously agree that the State has proven or failed to prove all elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict of guilty or not guilty, then the judge will declare a mistrial. With some offenses, however, it can be a little unclear as to what jury unanimity actually requires. This is specifically so with aggregated theft cases.

What Is Aggregate Theft?

Aggregate theft is an offense where two or more thefts were committed “pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct” and the amounts combined determine the grade of the offense. Tex. Penal Code §31.09. Under Section 31.09, aggregate theft may be and often is considered as one offense. Even though it is considered one offense, each individual underlying theft act (where the amounts are aggregated) is considered an element. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas has held that for evidence to be sufficient the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully appropriated “enough property to meet the aggregated value alleged.” The state is not required to prove each underlying appropriation. However, the Court, until recently has left one question unanswered: Does the jury have to unanimously agree on all underlying theft transactions? Meaning, if the defendant is alleged to have committed 10 separate theft acts (pursuant to a common scheme), do the jury have to agree on each, or some, or none?

Kent v. State—What is the Jury Unanimity requirement in Aggregate Theft cases?

Until recently there had been no holding by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas on whether jurors are required to unanimously agree on each underlying transaction that is used to comprise an aggregated theft charge. In Kent v. State the Court finally addressed this exact question.

See the full CCA opinion in Kent..

Kent was a mortgage broker indicted for theft from four complainants in an amount exceeding $200,000. The thefts were alleged to have occurred over a period of time and pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct. At trial, the defense requested a paragraph in the jury instructions that outlined each individual theft allegation and called for a unanimous verdict on each. The trial judge denied the defense request to include this paragraph. The jury found Kent guilty of aggregate theft. On appeal, the Kent complained that the trial judge erred by refusing to include his requested paragraph in the jury instructions. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the jury should have been instructed that they must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt on each underlying transaction used to comprise an aggregate theft charge.

The State appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas to determine whether this was correct. Reversing the lower courts holding, the CCA held that for an aggregated-theft case,

unanimity requires that the jurors agree that the threshold amount has been reached and that all the elements are proven for each specific instance of theft that the individual juror believes to have occurred. Every instance of theft need not be unanimously agreed upon by the jury.

In other words, it is only required that the jurors unanimously agree that two or more thefts pursuant to a common scheme, when combined, exceeded the threshold amount beyond a reasonable doubt, not that they unanimously agree on exactly which thefts were comprised to reach that amount.

Takeaway: When facing aggregated theft charges it is important to know that the jury does not have to unanimously agree that each underlying theft alleged in the indictment has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Bottom line, it’s the aggregated amount that matters. This is only a brief explanation of how the jury unanimity requirement plays a role in a case and if you should have any more questions contact our Fort Worth criminal defense team.

Mar 28

2

Double Jeopardy, OJ Simpson and the New Knife

By Brandon Barnett | Double Jeopardy

OJ Simpson Knife Double Jeopardy Many of you have heard of the new development in the OJ Simpson case, the discovery of a knife that was found on Simpson’s property sometime around 2002 or 2003 (interesting that this is coming to light during the airing of the OJ Simpson TV drama on FX). A construction worker, who gave the knife to a former LAPD officer that was working as a security officer, reportedly uncovered the knife on or around Simpson’s property. For reasons that are unclear, the knife was just recently turned over to LAPD in early March. This is big news because the knife used in the murders of OJ’s wife, Nicole Simpson and her friend, Ron Goldman, was never found and Simpson was ultimately acquitted in 1995 for their murders. So what does this discovery mean for OJ Simpson and the murder charges that of which he was acquitted back in 1995? LAPD is testing the knife for DNA and hair, and it has been unofficially reported that no DNA exists, but if they find something, what can they do?

Can Simpson be retried for the murder of his wife and her friend?

No, he cannot be retried. Jeopardy has attached and Simpson is protected from being retried on the same offense after being acquitted. The 5th Amendment of the United State’s Constitution provides that no person shall be “subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” In other words, a person shall not be put on trial for the same offense after receiving a not guilty verdict. This is commonly known as the protection again Double Jeopardy. Further, the Doctrine of Res Judicata (claims preclusion) bars relitigation of a claim that has been validly and finally adjudicated.

Because OJ Simpson was acquitted for the murder of his wife and her friend, this means that he is protected by the Constitution from Double Jeopardy and cannot be taken to trial for their murders again even if new “evidence” is discovered. This answer would not change even if DNA evidence came back showing a link to one of the victims. Further, under the Doctrine of Res Judicata, since there was a valid and final judgment in regards to the guilt of Simpson in these murders, the State of California is barred from reopening Simpson’s case.

Is there any way around Double Jeopardy?

The only way around double jeopardy is to be federally indicted for some other offense arising from the same events. The state and federal authorities are separate sovereigns. Here, it would not be a Double Jeopardy violation for Simpson to receive a federal indictment for violation of the victims’ civil rights, but it would be incredibly unlikely.

Takeaway: If you have already been found not guilty for an criminal charge, the 5th Amendment and Doctrine of Res Judicata protect you from being brought to trial on that same charge.

Mar 24

3

Turns Out That Walking Late at Night in a High-Crime Area Is Not Criminal Activity

By Brandon Barnett | Reasonable Suspicion, Search & Seizure

Reasonable Suspicion Brodnex Texas 2016 Frequently the public’s perception as to what officers can and cannot do during encounters is convoluted and even wrong. Many people are unaware of what their 4th Amendment rights actually afford them when it comes to contact with police officers. First, it’s important to know that an officer is completely free to approach whomever he wants and have a consensual encounter with someone whether or not he has a specific reason. However, an officer cannot detain you on a simple hunch, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Then comes the question of what exactly is reasonable suspicion.

What is Reasonable Suspicion?

According to Fourth Amendment law, reasonable suspicion exists when there are specific articulable facts that, when combined with rational inferences from the facts, would lead a reasonable officer to believe crime was afoot. The police officer must have more than a hunch that a crime was in progress. If a police officer detains, frisks, or searches someone without reasonable suspicion that officer has violated the 4th Amendment and evidence coming from that unlawful detention must be suppressed.

The 4th Amendment in Action – Brodnex v State of Texas (2016)

In a case just decided by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, the Court overturned a conviction because it found the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant, thus, violating the 4th Amendment.

In Brodnex v. State, the defendant was arrested and convicted of possession of a controlled substance. The arresting officer observed Brodnex and a female walking in an area known for narcotic activity around 2 a.m.. The officer approached the two individuals, asked them their names and what they were doing. When Brodnex identified himself, the officer asked him “Didn’t you just get picked up?” and Brodnex replied “Hell no.” The Officer then searched Brodnex and found a cigar tube with crack cocaine.

The Officer’s reasons for detaining Brodnex were:

The time of day;
The area’s known narcotic activity, and
His belief, based on what other officers had told him, that Brodnex was a “known criminal.”

Brodnex filed a motion to suppress challenging both the stop and search. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirmed.

The CCA Overturns the Conviction for Lack of Reasonable Suspicion

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held that Brodnex was illegally detained because at the time of detention, under the totality of the circumstances, the facts apparent to the officer “did not provide him with a reasonable suspicion for the detention.” Therefore, the crack cocaine should have been suppressed. The court’s holding relied on the fact that the officer had simply seen Brodnex walking, not doing anything that would suggest he was engaged or about to engage in criminal activity. Additionally, the court found that the officer’s limited personal knowledge of Brodnex’s criminal history was not enough to support the belief that Brodnex was lying about not being picked up.

Know Your Rights

This case explains that the officer must have sufficient information that links the suspect to a particular crime before reasonable suspicion exists. While the time of day and high-crime area are factors that Texas courts consider, those alone are insufficient to develop reasonable suspicion. Since reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances, it is often not completely clear as to whether a particular set of facts rises to the level of reasonable suspicion.

If you are facing criminal charges that resulted from a detention or search that might not have been supported by reasonable suspicion, any evidence found from might be able to be suppressed. Contact our criminal defense team today to discuss your case and determine whether a reasonable suspicion issue is present.

*To know your rights on the go, download our FREE Mobile App.

Mar 23

1

Secret Societies and Mental Competency of a Pro Se Defendant

By Brandon Barnett | Mental Health

“The man who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

Mental Competency Pro Se Defendant Regardless of whether the decision may be unwise, a criminal defendant has the right to represent himself or herself at trial. But, as explained by the US Supreme Court in Indiana v. Edwards (554 US 164, 171), this right is not absolute. A defendant must be mentally competent to represent oneself at trial. In Logan v. State, the 2nd Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) explains “competence to stand trial is not alone the test for competence to represent oneself at trial.” Here’s what happened in Logan…

Defendant Requests to Represent Herself

Charise Logan was charged with criminal trespass for being on the UTA campus after she had been warned not to return. Ms. Logan requested to defend herself in court. The trial judge of County Criminal Court Number 1 in Tarrant County inquired as to whether Ms. Logan understood her right to an attorney. She answered that she understood, but added that she did not believe she could find an attorney who was not part of the “conspiracies against her.”

Trial Judge Orders Mental Competency Evaluation

The trial judge inquired as to whether the defendant has ever been treated for a mental illness. Ms. Logan answered that she had, but that it was 10 years ago. The trial judge then ordered a competency evaluation, which was conducted by a psychologist. The psychologist reported that the defendant had an “unspecified personality disorder,” but that she was competent to stand trial and to consult with counsel. There is plenty more about the defendant’s competency exam if you read the full opinion.

The Case Proceeds to Trial | Defendant Explains the “Conspiracy”

Ms. Logan’s case proceeded to trial, with her acting as her own counsel, despite her documented mental illness. At a pretrial hearing, the defendant filed a document explaining that she had been:

hunted by a secret society and currently, a sex ring for several years of [her] life” and outlines a pattern of harassment and surveillance of her conducted by the secret society. Appellant implicates President Barack Obama and the family of former President George H.W. Bush in this conspiracy. According to the pro se document, the secret society surveilled Appellant between 2011 and 2015. Appellant alleges in the document that the secret society used witchcraft, voodoo, and blackmail to force unwilling participants to engage in activities against her. She further alleges that the conspiracy was after her because of the auditory and visual gifts bestowed upon her by God.

Because the defendant did not request and relief in her filing, the trial court did not have anything on which to rule. The court took no additional action based on this “information.” The trial proceeded and a jury convicted the defendant of criminal trespass.

Appellate Issues Concerning Competency of Pro Se Defendant

On appeal to the 2nd Court of Appeals (Fort Worth), the fundamental issue was whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to represent her. Finding error, the appellate court held:

when determining the ability of a defendant to represent herself pro se, the trial court should take a realistic account of the particular defendant’s capacity to represent herself. A person could be capable of working with counsel at trial and thus meet the test for competency set out in Dusky v. United States (362 US 402), yet at the same time be unable to carry out the basic tasks necessary to present her own defense without the assistance of counsel.

Appeals Court Reverses the Conviction

The appellate court set aside the Ms. Logan’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. In so doing, Justice Dauphinot explained that “[t]he trial court deprived Appellant of counsel by accepting her waiver of counsel that was neither voluntary nor knowing. Such error is automatically reversible.” The court went further to hold that it was error for the trial court to order a mental competency evaluation without counsel being present. While issues like these are rare, we are starting to see more and more mental health cases that could turn out like this one, if the right steps are not taken.

Mar 18

1

When the Jury Verdict is Not Authorized by Law

By Brandon Barnett | Jury Trial

What Should the Trial Judge Do When the Jury Returns an Unauthorized Verdict?

Judge Reform Unauthorized Verdict At the trial of Reginald Nixon for burglary of a habitation and evading arrest, the jury returned a guilty verdict and sentence of 7 years for the burglary and 9 years for the evading. However, the verdict form contained a handwritten note that read: “*To be served consecutively, not concurrently.” A consecutive sentence would mean that the two verdicts are added together to make the actual prison term 16 years. The jury had previously asked the judge whether the sentences would run concurrently and the judge refused to answer them, advising them to simply continue with their deliberations. Without an answer to their question, the jury took the matter into their own hands.

The problem with the jury’s verdict of 7 years and 9 years to run consecutively is that it is not an authorized sentence. Under Texas law, the sentences in Nixon’s case were required to run concurrently rather than consecutively. As a result, the trial judge refused to accept the sentences and reform them to run concurrently (as he was urged to do by Nixon’s counsel). Instead, the judge sent the jury back with a note advising them that the sentences cannot run consecutively. The jury soon returned with new verdicts of 16 years confinement for each offense, which the judge accepted.

Nixon appealed, again urging that the trial judge erred by failing to accept and reform the original jury verdicts. The 2nd Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) affirmed the trial court’s judgments and “reasoned that while the judge may have had the authority to reform the verdict under Article 37.10, he also had the authority to refuse the verdict and return the jury to their deliberations pursuant to this Court’s opinion in Muniz v. State [573, S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)].”

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and now reverses the holding of the 2nd Court of Appeals. The CCA highlighted the changes that were made in 1985 when the legislature enacted Section 37.10(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This change distinguished between “informal” and “unauthorized” verdicts. For unauthorized verdicts, Section 37.10(b) provides:

If the jury assesses punishment in a case and in the verdict assesses both punishment that is authorized by law for the offense and punishment that is not authorized by law for the offense, the court shall reform the verdict to show the punishment authorized by law and to omit the punishment not authorized by law.

CCA explained that the lower court’s reliance on Muniz was misplaced since Section 37.10(b) was not enacted at the time Muniz was decided. Further, the verdict form in Muniz was incomplete, unlike the verdict in this case, which was complete but contained an unauthorized portion.

The CCA concluded by holding:

Although the terms of confinement were 45 authorized punishments, the attempted cumulation was punishment unauthorized by law. Article 37.10(b)’s plain language is clear that, when the jury assesses punishment and returns a verdict assessing punishment that is both authorized and unauthorized by law, “the court shall reform the verdict to show the punishment authorized by law and to omit the punishment not authorized by law.” Accordingly, we hold that the judge erred in failing to accept the initial punishment verdicts and omit the jury’s unauthorized attempt to stack the terms of confinement.

Judge Alcala and Judge Yeary dissented.

Mar 07

3

“Failure to Protect” and the Affirmative Defense for Domestic Violence Victims

By Brandon Barnett | Defenses, Domestic Violence

Failure to Protect Injury to a Child In Texas, our “failure to protect” statute is an omission statute—Injury to a Child by Omission—meaning it aims to encourage parents to remove their children from dangerous and violent environments. If a parent “fails to protect” their child from certain known dangers, that parent can be charged with Injury to a Child by Omission, a felony level offense in Texas. The statute also covers injury to an elderly or disabled individual. If the person charged with Injury to a Child by Omission is a domestic violence victim, it is important to be aware of the Affirmative Defense Texas provides.

Texas’ Injury to a Child by Omission Offense | Failure to Protect

Section 22.04 of the Texas Penal Code provides that a person commits an injury to a child if he recklessly by omission, causes to a child: (1) serious bodily injury; (2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or (3) bodily injury. Id. § 22.04(a).

An omission is conduct constituting an offense if: (1) the actor has a legal or statutory duty to act; or (2) the actor has assumed care, custody, or control of a child. PENAL § 22.04(b).

The Texas Family Code provides that a parent, guardian, conservator or foster parent of the child has the legal duty of care, control, and protection of the child. The State must prove that the defendant either intended or was aware that serious bodily injury would occur from their omissions. Patterson v. State, 46 S.W.3d 294.

Affirmative Defense to Prosecution for Domestic Violence Victims

In the early 90s, Texas established an affirmative defense for people charged with Injury to a Child by Omission. An affirmative defense is a complete and absolute legal defense. In the Failure to Protect scenario, a person can claim the affirmative defense if the following requirements are met:

there be no evidence that the defendant had any knowledge of a previous injury to the child and that they failed to report the injury;
the defendant “was a victim of family violence…committed by the same person “who is also charged with an offense against the child”; and
the defendant reasonably believed, at the time they failed to act, that any attempt to prevent the person from hurting the child “would have an effect.”

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(l)(2) (West 2011).

The Reality of Prosecution for Failure to Protect in Texas

Most often, mothers are the ones charged with Failure to Protect in Texas. In 2014, there were 19 women in Texas prisons serving time for Injury to a Child by Omission with sentences starting at ten years, all the way up to 45 years. Seven of these women were domestic violence victims. In fact, a Tarrant County woman who was also a victim to the violence of the man who injured her child is currently serving 40 years. Hopper v. State, 2013 WL 4679166 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2013, pet. ref’d.) Furthermore, the woman serving 45 years was a case out of Dallas County where she was also a victim to the violence of the man who injured her child. It is unknown whether these women asserted the affirmative defense at trial.

As mentioned above, there are serious consequences attached to Injury to a Child by Omission and it is important to recognize all possible defense options. Many people do not know that the affirmative defense regarding domestic violence exists. If you are charged with an Injury to a Child by Omission and are also a victim of the abuser’s violence, this defense might apply to you. Contact our team today to find out what steps can be taken in your case. Regardless of whether this affirmative defense applies in your case, our attorneys will still fight hard to get your case dismissed or mitigated in any way they can.

Brandon Barnett