Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorneys

Indecent Exposure: From Class B Misdemeanor to Sex Offender

By | Sex Crimes | No Comments

Sex Offender Registration for the Offense of Indecent Exposure

Most “sex offenses” in Texas are felonies. Most sex offenses involve some sort of physical contact or an indecent act with a minor. However, there is one offense that is classified as a low-level Class B misdemeanor, than can result in sex offender registration.

Indecent Exposure under Section 21.08 of the Texas Penal Code is a Class B misdemeanor, which means it only carries a range of punishment of 0-180 days in county jail and a fine up to $2,000. Indecent Exposure can range from urinating on a public golf course, to having intercourse in a parked car in a public parking lot, to flashing someone. A person convicted or sentenced to Deferred Adjudication for Indecent Exposure does not typically have to register as a sex offender. If the offense is the first time that person has been charged or convicted with Indecent Exposure, then there is no registration requirement.

10-Year Sex Offender Registration for the 2nd Indecent Exposure Conviction

Under Section 62.005(5)(F) of the Texas Penal Code, a person is required to register as a sex offender for a period of 10 years for “the second violation of Section 21.08 (Indecent exposure), Penal Code.” However, “if the second violation results in a deferred adjudication,” then the person is not required to register. Because the statute uses the term “violation,” instead of “conviction,” a first charge of Indecent Exposure that results in a deferred adjudication still counts toward the total, even if the defendant ultimately has their case dismissed. So it is imperative that a defense attorney negotiate for a deferred adjudication if their client has a previous conviction or deferred for Indecent Exposure.

See what other crimes require Sex Offender Registration in Texas.

Michael Morton Act In Re Powell

Court Rules on Discovery to Clients under the Michael Morton Act (39.14)

By | Criminal Defense | No Comments

May a Court Order that an Attorney Can Provide Copies of Discovery to a Client Pursuant to the Michael Morton Act?

Michael Morton Act In Re PowellThe Court of Criminal Appeals recently handed down an opinion on a petition for writ of mandamus in regard to a discovery dispute arising out of Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure —otherwise known as the Michael Morton Act. The central issue facing the Court was whether the relator (a party who has standing and on whose behalf a writ of mandamus is petitioned for by the state as plaintiff) satisfied the criteria to justify mandamus relief.

See the full opinion in In re Powell v. Hocker (NO. WR-85,177-01)

The Facts—Trial Judge Granted Defendant’s Motion to Release Discovery.

Ellen Wilson, the real party of interest, was charged with misdemeanor DWI in the County Court at Law in Lubbock, Texas. Wilson’s attorney obtained discovery pursuant to Article 39.14 and filed a motion to “release” Wilson from the prohibition contained in subsection (f) of the statute. Subsection (f) of Article 39.14 permits a defense attorney to “allow a defendant . . . to view the [discovery] information provided under this article,” but the defense attorney “may not allow” the defendant “to have copies of the information provided[.]

In the brief filed in support of the motion, Wilson’s attorney prayed that the County Court at Law would “permit defense counsel to give her a properly redacted copy of the requested items of the State’s evidence.” The brief did not maintain that Wilson had been unable to “view” the discovery in the attorney’s possession, as the statute expressly permits. Rather, it asserted that it was important for Wilson to be able to obtain her own copies in order to effectively help counsel prepare her defense. The trial judge granted Wilson’s motion, but stayed the effect of his ruling pending the State’s application for writ of mandamus.

The Court of Criminal Appeals Conditionally Granted Mandamus Relief—Directing the County Court at law to Rescind its Order Permitting Defense Counsel to Provide Defendant a Copy of the Discovery Materials that were Provided by the State Pursuant to Article 39.14.

In order for a court to determine whether mandamus relief is appropriate, the relator must establish two criteria. State ex rel. Young v. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Dist., 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The relator must demonstrate that he has no adequate remedy at law to rectify the alleged harm. Id. Additionally, the relator must have a clear right to the relief sought. Id. In other words, the relator must show that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. Id.

The Court determined that the State had no right to appeal Respondent’s order, which permitted trial counsel to provide the real party of interest with a copy of the discovery materials. More notably, Respondent did not seriously contest this issue. As such, the Court held the first criteria to be satisfied for mandamus relief.

Next, the Court determined the act was ministerial in nature. An act may be deemed “ministerial” when “the facts are undisputed and, given those undisputed facts, the law clearly spells out the duty to be performed … with such certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion or judgment[,]”—even if a judicial decision is involved. State ex rel. Healey v. McMeans, 884 S.W.2d 772, 774 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (citations omitted). Furthermore, the Court determined this rule extends to cases of first impression.

The Court found Article 39.14 to be clear, unambiguous, and indisputable. Subsection (f) of the statute expressly and unequivocally prohibits the attorney, or her agent, to “allow” the defendant “to have copies of the information provided[.]” Respondent argued that Subsection (f) only speaks to whether the defendant’s attorney may supply him with copies of the discovery materials; it does not prohibit a trial court itself from providing copies. The Court rejected this argument because not doing so would circumvent the unqualified prohibition in subsection (f).

Next, Respondent argued that subsection (e) contemplates scenarios when a trial court may order disclosure of such materials. Subsection (e) expressly prohibits “the defendant” from personally disclosing discovery material to a third party. Respondent argued that this prohibition seems to assume that the defendant would have copies of those materials in the first place to disclose. The Court rejected this argument explaining that a defendant could “disclose” the substance of discovery materials to a third party by memory, having been allowed to “view” them pursuant to Subsection (f).

Rejecting all of Respondent’s arguments, the Court determined that the trial court lacked authority to enter an order that effectively abrogated Article 39.14. As such, the Court conditionally granted mandamus relief directing the County Court at Law to rescind its order.

This opinion solidifies what we already knew about Article 39.14 and have been telling clients all along – defense attorneys MAY NOT provide discovery materials to our clients.  And now, not even if the trial court orders it.

TSA Airport Gun Charges Texas

Criminal Penalties for Bringing a Gun to the Airport (Accidentally)

By | Weapons Charges | No Comments

Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon at an Airport in Texas

TSA Airport Gun Charges TexasWe love our guns in Texas. After all, those licensed to carry a handgun can now choose to conceal the handgun or wear it on their hip like in the old west. But carrying a handgun comes with its risks. Many places are designated as “off limits” for handguns. Chief among them is the airport. And everyday, well-meaning folks forget about their trusty handgun when they pack their bags and head to DFW International Airport, only to be reminded by a less-than-friendly TSA agent as they attempt to pass through security.

What Can Happen if I Accidentally Bring a Gun Through Security at DFW Airport?

Generally, if you carry a firearm through the security checkpoint at an airport, you can be detained and arrested. Carrying a firearm, either on your person or in your carry-on luggage, is a violation of Texas Penal Code Sections 46.02 and 46.03. The detention and arrest could take several hours and might cause you to miss your flight as you move through the process. The DFW Airport Police could also confiscate your handgun. If you are arrested for bringing a handgun to the airport, your case will be filed with the Tarrant County District Attorney.

How Serious is an Arrest for Bringing a Firearm to the Airport in Texas?

Depending on how the authorities choose to proceed, you could be charged with 3rd Degree Felony or a Class A Misdemeanor. A 3rd Degree Felony carries a range of punishment from 2-10 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000. A Class A Misdemeanor carries a punishment range of 0-365 days in the County Jail and a fine up to $4,000. We handle several airport gun cases every year and in our experience, the Tarrant County DA typically files the case as a Class A misdemeanor.

What Should I Do After I am Arrested for an Airport Gun Charge?

After you post bond and are released from custody, you need to hire a lawyer to help defend you on the charges. You should also consider signing up for a local gun safety course so that you can demonstrate that you understand the severity of your mistake and are taking steps to ensure that it does not happen again. Other than that, follow the advice of your attorney. Do not attempt to get your gun back. Your lawyer can help you do that with a court order, if appropriate, once the case is closed.

I Have an LTC (CHL). Are There Any Exceptions for Me?

Yes. In 2015, the Texas legislature added some language to Section 46.03 to provide for LTC holders who accidentally forgot about their weapon. Section 46.03 now provides:

(e-1) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(5) that the actor:
(1) possessed, at the screening checkpoint for the secured area, a concealed handgun that the actor was licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;  and
(2) exited the screening checkpoint for the secured area immediately upon completion of the required screening processes and notification that the actor possessed the handgun.
(e-2) A peace officer investigating conduct that may constitute an offense under Subsection (a)(5) and that consists only of an actor’s possession of a concealed handgun that the actor is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, may not arrest the actor for the offense unless:
(1) the officer advises the actor of the defense available under Subsection (e-1) and gives the actor an opportunity to exit the screening checkpoint for the secured area;  and
(2) the actor does not immediately exit the checkpoint upon completion of the required screening processes.

So, basically, they are going to give you a chance to leave the secured area as soon as your mistake is realized. They cannot arrest a valid LTC holder unless the person refuses to leave the secured area immediately.

How Can I Lawfully Carry a Firearm on a Flight?

To carry a firearm on a flight, you must place the firearm in your checked baggage and declare it at the time you check your bags. Also, you should check the TSA guidelines before packing to ensure that you follow all of the rules and regulations.

TSA Sent Me a Demand for Money After I was Arrested. What Should I Do?

The law allows for TSA to send a civil demand letter for money damages. TSA officials consider the “severity” of your violation and then send a demand for money within the range that they consider appropriate. They will typically allow for your to pay less than the demanded amount if you pay quickly.

*See this sample TSA Civil Demand Letter.

You may pay the full demand, file a written response, or contact TSA to see if you can work out an arrangement. We have been able to help our clients pay less than what is demanded, but every case is different.

Will I Receive a Conviction on My Record For This?

It depends. Many of our clients that were charged with Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon in the airport have had their cases dismissed. But again, every case is different. The key is to contact an attorney right away so that your rights may be preserved throughout the criminal justice process.  Our team regularly handles airport gun cases arising out of DFW International Airport or Love Field Airport. We have offices in Keller and Fort Worth and offer free consultations.

Request Military Service Records DD214 SF180

How to Request a DD-214 or Other Military Service Records

By | Veterans | No Comments

Getting a DD-214, Service Medical Records, or Other Military Service Information for Your Client

Request Military Service Records DD214 SF180Once a United States servicemember has been released from active duty, they are issued a DD-214. The DD-214 is a critical document, in that it records the member’s discharge classification (e.g. Honorable, General, Other than Honorable, Bad Conduct, Dishonorable), lists their tours of foreign duty, and assigns a re-entry code. The DD-214 is proof of service, and is used to verify eligibility for government benefits, including the GI Bill, VA loan, and others. Additionally, whether applying for a home loan, renewing a driver’s license, or applying for a college scholarship, the DD-214 is very useful.

In my line of work, I often need to see my client’s DD-214 in order to show the prosecutor that my client is an honorably discharged veteran or to help them apply for a Veteran’s Court program. Additionally, service medical records and other administrative documents contained within an Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) are often useful when defending a criminal case.

Use Standard Form 180 (SF-180) to Apply for Military Service Record Documents

The Standard Form 180, Request Pertaining to Military Records (SF-180) is used to request information from military records. Certain identifying information is necessary to determine the location of an individual’s record of military service. When filling out the SF-180, you should try to answer each item on the form, if possible. If you do not have and cannot obtain the information for an item, write “NA,” meaning the information is “not available,” but try to include as much of the requested information as you can. Incomplete information on the SF-180 can delay response time. To determine where to mail the request form, look at Page 2 of the SF-180 for record locations and facility addresses.

What Information Do I need in Order to Make a Request?

The following information is required to request military service records, including a DD-214:

  • Veteran’s complete name used while in service
  • Service number (usually, the Social security number, until recently when the DOD moved to a new DOD ID#)
  • Branch of Service.
  • Dates of entry and Date of release of service
  • Date and place of birth

How Long Does it Take to Receive Military Records and How Much Does it Cost?

I can only speak from experience. Every time I have requested military records from one of my clients, using the SF-180, I have received the records within 45 days. If you fill out as much of the SF-180 as possible, then the chances are that you will receive a response faster than if you leave items blank. Additionally, if you are request documents on behalf of a client, then you’ll want to include a Power of Attorney with your request. I typically have the client sign the request form but then use my office address as the place to mail the records. You can check the status of your records request by telephone at NPRC Customer Service Line (314) 801-0800.

There is no cost, typically, for receiving a DD-214, medical records, or a basic OMPF. Some records will involve a fee, but you will be contacted if that is the case, prior to them sending you the records.

Expedited Service for Military Service Records

If you need records immediately, for a funeral, trial, or something urgent, you should try using the service (eVetRecs) from the National Archives. They strive for a 2-day turnaround on urgent requests.  You could also use this service instead of the SF-180 if you choose, even if your request is not urgent.

 

If you are a retired or discharged military member and you do not have several copies (or an e-copy) of you DD-214, you should download the SF-180 and request your records today. You never know when you’ll need them.

*PLEASE NOTE: Our firm only assists current clients in retrieving military service records as needed for their cases. Do to time limitations, we cannot help others in getting their military records. But hopefully, some of the information on this article will help you get your records.

Terry Stop Officer Pat Down Search

“Acting Suspicious” is Not Enough to Justify a Pat Down Search

By | Search & Seizure | No Comments

Does an Officer’s Testimony That a Person was “Acting Suspicious” Establish Reasonable Suspicion to Support a Terry Stop?

Terry Stop Officer Pat Down SearchThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion concerning the reasonable suspicion standard required for law enforcement officers to conduct a Terry stop—an exception to the warrant requirement. The issue facing the Court was whether merely “acting suspicious” is enough to establish reasonable suspicion to justify a law enforcement officer to initiate a Terry stop.

United States v. Monsivais, 848 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2017)

The Facts — District Court Found the Terry Stop to be Lawful Based On the Defendant’s Demeanor, Remarks, and for Officer-safety Reasons

While on patrol in a marked police car, two officers observed Monsivais walking down the side of the I-20 interstate away from an apparently disabled truck. The officers stopped in front of Monsivais and activated the car’s emergency lights in order to ask Monsivais if he needed roadside assistance. As Monsivais approached, he ignored the officers and walked past their patrol car. At this point, the officers exited their vehicle, and asked Monsivais where he was going and if he needed any help. Monsivais told the officers he was heading to Fort Worth (even though his vehicle was pointed towards Abilene). During questioning, Monsivais appeared nervous and repeatedly placed his hands in his pockets; however upon the officer’s request, Monsivais removed his hands. Additionally, Monsivais responded politely to all of the officers’ questions. After approximately four minutes, one of the officers advised Monsivais that he was going to pat Monsivais down for weapons because of his behavior, inconsistent statements and for officer safety reasons. Shortly thereafter, Monsivais told the officer that he had a firearm in his waistband. The officer seized the firearm and Monsivais was later charged with possession of a firearm while being unlawfully present in the United States.

Monsivais filed a motion to suppress the firearm and other evidence, arguing that the officer violated the Fourth Amendment because he did not have reasonable suspicion to believe Monsivais was involved in criminal activity when he detained him. The district court denied Monsivais’ motion to suppress, holding only that the “consensual encounter was transformed into a lawful Terry frisk due to the Defendant’s demeanor, remarks, and for officer-safety reasons.”

The Court of Appeals Reversed the District Court’s Decision—Holding the Officers Lacked a Basis to Reasonably Suspect Monsivais of a Criminal Act

The Court first determined that the officer seized Monsivais for Fourth Amendment purposes when he told Monsivais that he was going to pat him down. At this point, the officer converted the roadside assistance “welfare check” into an investigative detention—otherwise known as a Terry stop.

“The Fourth Amendment generally requires officers to obtain a warrant before searching or seizing an individual.” However, pursuant to a narrow exception announced in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 (1968), police officers may briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if under the totality of relevant circumstance they can point to “specific and articulable facts” that give rise to reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. United States v. Hill, 752 F.3d 1029, 1033 (5th Cir. 2014).

Here, the Court found that while Monsivais’ behavior might not have been typical of all stranded motorists, the officers could not point to any specific and articulable facts that Monsivais had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime before seizing him.

The court explained that Monsivais’ nervous demeanor alone was insufficient to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to justify a Terry stop. In fact, the Court gives little or no weight to an officer’s statement that a suspect appeared nervous. United States v. Portillo–Aguirre, 311 F.3d 647, 656 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the Court held that evidence of Monsivais placing his hands in his pocket is of little significance. The Court noted that any number of people walking down the street might have their hands in their pockets. Additionally, the Court determined there were no inconsistencies in Monsivais’ story; and, even if there were, the inconsistencies would not connect Monsivais with any reasonably suspected unlawful conduct. Moreover, Monsivais’ choice to ignore the officers’ presence by merely walking past them, not fleeing, did not give rise to criminal activity.

In conclusion, the officer testified that he never suspected Monsivais was involved in any criminal activity, but rather that Monsivais was just acting “suspicious.” As such, the court found that the officer seized Monsivais without reasonable suspicion and that the evidence obtained from the unlawful seizure should have been suppressed.

Resisting Arrest Unlawful Arrest Texas

May a Person Resist an Unlawful Arrest in Texas?

By | Criminal Defense | No Comments

Resisting Arrest: How is it defined under Texas law?

Resisting Arrest Unlawful Arrest TexasIn general, resisting arrest occurs when a person attempts to interfere with a peace officer’s duties. Section 38.03 of the Texas Penal Code defines resisting arrest as: a person who intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction from:

  • Effectuating an arrest;
  • Carrying out a search; or
  • Transporting a person accused of a crime.

Resisting arrest requires the person to have used force against the arrest, but it does not require the officer to be acting lawfully in making the arrest. To be guilty of resisting arrest, the force need not only be directed at or toward the officer but is also met with any force exerted in opposition to, but away from the officer, such as a simple pulling away. Thus, even small uses of force can give rise to a charge of resisting arrest. However, non-threatening statements of disagreement with the officer’s actions usually are not enough to qualify as resisting arrest.

Some examples of resisting arrest include:

  • Preventing a cop from handcuffing you;
  • Struggling against an officer who is trying to arrest you; and
  • Engaging in violent action against the officer, like punching, kicking or inflicting harm with a weapon

Can You Resist an Unlawful Arrest in Texas?

One of the most important cases on this point is Ford v. State, 538 S.W.2d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).

What Ford provides, in short, is that you may not resist an arrest—whether lawful or unlawful. Historically, American citizens were legally entitled to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest. Several states have now eliminated – either by statute or by judicial decision – the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest. Section 38.03 of the Texas Penal Code eliminated this right. Furthermore, subsection (b) of Section 38.03 specifically states it is no defense to prosecution that the arrest or search was unlawful.

In Ford, the Court held “the elimination of the common law right to resist arrest reflects a growing realization that the use of self-help to prevent an unlawful arrest presents too great a threat to the safety of individuals and society to be sanctioned.” The Court reasoned that the line between an illegal and legal arrest is too fine to be determined in a street confrontation; it is a question to be decided by the courts. Furthermore, the Court has concluded that by limiting the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest, the Legislature has not limited the remedies available to the person arrested, and thus, there is not a violation of the person’s constitutional rights.

Potential Consequences

Regardless of whether a person is guilty of the underlying charge that prompted the attempted apprehension, resisting arrest is a serious charge in Texas (many time more serious than the underlying offense). A person can face a significant fine and jail time.

Typically, resisting arrest, search, or transportation is prosecuted as a Class A Misdemeanor. An individual convicted of a Class A Misdemeanor may be sentenced to up to a year in county jail and a fine of up to $4,000.

However, the charge may be enhanced to a felony of the 3rd degree if you use a deadly weapon, such as a gun or a knife, to resist the arrest or search. An individual convicted of a felony of the 3rd degree may be sentenced to 2-10 years in the Texas Department of Corrections and a fine up to $10,000.

Our advice is to comply with the officer’s demands calmly and politely and let us work out the legality of the arrest later.

Passout Blackout Alcohol Memory Sexual Assault Attorney

Passout vs. Blackout: How Alcohol Can Affect Memory (Voice for Defense Article)

By | Sex Crimes | No Comments

Alcohol and Memory: An Interview with Texas Forensic Psychologist, Dr. Kelly Goodness, Ph.D

Passout Blackout Alcohol Memory Sexual AssaultAs you can probably imagine, many criminal cases involve events that occur when people are intoxicated. This can be especially true for cases involving allegations of sexual offenses. In these alcohol-fueled situations, the issue of memory can play a large part in the case. When we encounter intoxication and memory issues in sexual assault cases, we often employ the assistance of a forensic psychologist to serve as either an expert consultant or expert witness.  One of the best in her field is Dr. Kelly Goodness of Keller, Texas. Dr. Goodness is an expert in alcohol and the brain, including the difference between “pass out” and “blackout” evidence.  She is one of the most highly employed experts for alcohol-related sexual assault cases involving members of the U.S. Military. What follows is an interview that we conducted with Dr. Goodness regarding how alcohol can impact a person’s memory and how it can apply to the sexual assault context.
______________________

Q: Dr. Goodness, How is Alcohol Related to Memory?

A: Alcohol is a potent amnestic agent. Beginning with just one or two drinks, alcohol can produce detectable memory impairments. As the dose increases, so does the potential magnitude of the memory impairments, all the way up to the total inability to recall events during a drinking episode, otherwise known as a blackout.

Read the full article from the Voice for the Defense HERE.

Denton County Pretrial Diversion PTD

Denton County Pre-Trial Diversion Program (PTD)

By | Diversion Program | No Comments

Pre-Trial Diversion (PTD) Denton County, Texas.  A Second Chance for First-time Offenders.

Denton County Pretrial Diversion PTDWhen someone is charged with a criminal offense and is experiencing their first encounter with the criminal justice system, the process can be daunting. A first-time offender typically has two primary concerns: 1) Will I go to jail? and 2) Can I keep this offense from going on my record?

While there may be options available to keep a conviction off of a person’s record, the goal for most first-time (and one-time) offenders is to land in a situation making it possible to erase all records related to the arrest from existence. Under State law (Texas Government Code 76.011), counties are allowed to establish pre-trial diversion programs. Upon successful completion, these programs allow for certain first-time offenses to be discharged and ultimately expunged from an individual’s record.

Thankfully many counties across the State take into consideration the fact that a person has no prior history and may have just made a one-time mistake. Denton County, Texas is no different. First-time offenders that have been arrested for certain non-violent offenses may be eligible for a pre-trial diversion program in Denton County.

Eligibility for Pre-Trial Diversion in Denton Texas

To be eligible for a pretrial diversion program in Denton County, Texas an individual’s case must meet the following criteria:

  • The individual must be employed or enrolled in an accredited school
  • The individual charged must admit to guilt of the offense and accept responsibility
  • The individual must have had no prior arrests
  • The individual must report monthly to a probation officer
  • The individual cannot commit any new offenses and must abstain from the use of illegal drugs and alcohol

Also, ultimate discretion to allow a person to participate in a pre-trial
diversion program rests solely with the District Attorney. The District Attorney must approve of each applicant even if all criteria are met.

How Pre-Trial Diversion in Denton County, Texas Operates

Individuals participating in the pre-trial diversion program in Denton County are supervised by the Denton County Community Supervision Department (DCCSD). Individuals must pay a monthly supervision fee. DCCSD can and will tailor each program to each particular individual. A person may be required to participate in additional classes, community service or other rehabilitative programs as a result of his or her participation in the program. In addition, if any restitution has been assessed in favor of the victim in a case, repayment of that restitution could be made a condition of the program as well.  Typically, PTD lasts 12 months, but in some cases, it can be extended to 18 months.

Exceptions for Admission into the Denton County PTD Program

Because the District Attorney has ultimate discretion on allowing a person into the pre-trial diversion program, even a person who does not meet the minimum requirements may be allowed to enter into a pre-trial diversion.

The Final Result of Successfully Completing a Pre-Trial Diversion in Denton County, Texas

Upon successful completion of the Denton County Pre-Trial Diversion program, the District Attorney files a Motion to Dismiss the case and the case becomes eligible for an expunction.

FORT WORTH

Primary Location
209 W. 8th St
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817.993.9249

KELLER

*By Appointment Only
204 S. Main St #195
Keller, Texas 76248
817.482.6770

Marijuana Laws in Texas

Not Up in Smoke Yet: Marijuana Laws in Texas 2017

By | Drug Crimes | No Comments

Marijuana Laws in TexasYou have seen it on the news…yet another state has legalized marijuana. It seems as if weed is everywhere, surely Texas has jumped on the bandwagon and legalized it too! Our firm receives calls from people all the time who all say the same thing; they thought marijuana was legal now. Not in Texas.

Current Marijuana Laws in Texas

Despite having been legalized in other states, possessing even a small amount of marijuana is a crime in Texas. The Texas Health and Safety Code says it is illegal for a person to knowingly or intentionally possess a usable quantity of marijuana. How much marijuana a person has in their possession will affect the level of severity of the offense.

  • Up to 2 0z– Class B Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and up to a $2,000 fine
  • 2oz to 4oz– Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $4,000 fine
  • 4oz to 5lbsState Jail Felony, punishable by 180 days to 2 years in jail and up to a $10,000 fine
  • 5lbs to 50lbs– 3rd Degree Felony, punishable by 2 to 10 years in jail and up to a $10,000 fine
  • 50lbs to 2000lbs– 2nd Degree Felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years in jail and up to a $10,000 fine
  • More than 2000lbs– 1st Degree Felony, punishable by 2 to 99 years in jail and up to a $50,000 fine

Proposed Texas Laws Relating to Marijuana

Texas could be a state to watch in 2017 for Marijuana law reform. Texas Senator Jose Rodriguez has introduced Senate Joint Resolution 18, which would legalize cannabis for medicinal use, and Senate Joint Resolution 17, which would allow Texans to vote on legalization of marijuana in November 2018.

There are also three different proposed bills that would lessen punishment for possession of a small amount of marijuana under one ounce. Two propose a fine only, with a third taking the offense from a Class B to a Class C misdemeanor (also fine only).

Medical Marijuana in Texas

The Texas Compassionate Use Act was signed by Governor Greg Abbot in 2015. The Act allows for individuals with intractable epilepsy to have access to CBD oil, a low THC cannabis oil. The bill prohibits smoking marijuana. Critics of the law say it is unworkable, as it requires a doctor to “prescribe” marijuana rather than recommend it as they do in other states where medical marijuana is legal. Under current federal law, a doctor “prescribing” marijuana could be open to sanctions, while one recommending the use is not. Another issue is that the ratio of THC to CBD that is allowed under the law is not potent enough to help some patients. There is potential for changes to be made to the Act during this legislative session, with proponents of the Act looking to broaden the scope and make access easier for patients.

THC Oil in Texas (Wax, Dabs, Marijuana Concentrate)

Possessing THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) oil in Texas is considered a more serious crime than simply possessing marijuana. Over the last few years, vaping THC oil, which is a concentrated version of the mind-altering component of marijuana, has become popular. Under Texas law, THC oil or wax is considered a concentrate and possessing it is a felony criminal offense.

  • Less than 1 Gram– State Jail Felony
  • 1 Gram to 4 Grams– Third Degree Felony
  • 4 to 400 Grams– Second Degree Felony
  • 400 grams or more – First Degree Felony

The law considers THC oil and wax to be in a different penalty group that marijuana, due to the higher level of THC, and consequences are much harsher. So while a typical small amount of marijuana could be punishable as a misdemeanor, even a very small amount of THC oil can be punishable as a felony.

Edible THC in Texas

The use of THC oil in edibles can be very serious. When weighing the amount of a controlled substance, the Texas Health and Safety Code includes all adulterants and dilutants in the total weight. Popular THC laced edibles like gummy candy and brownies will be weighed in their entirety, and can result in very serious felony charges.

CBD Oil in Texas

Cannabidiol (CBD) oil is made from cannabis, but is non-psychoactive. Proponents claim it can have many health benefits. CBD oil that is made from industrial hemp is legal in Texas.

Synthetic Marijuana in Texas

K2, or Spice, is a synthetic form of marijuana that is created by spraying natural herbs with chemicals meant to mimic the effects of marijuana. Synthetic Marijuana is illegal in Texas, and carries the same punishment as marijuana.

Selective Prosecution for Marijuana Offenses in Texas

The District Attorney in Harris County (Houston) has decided not to prosecute low-level possession of marijuana cases. So far, that is the only county with such a policy. Other counties have diversion programs for first-time or low level offenders. You should check with a knowledgable attorney in your local area to learn more about the diversion programs available.

In Tarrant County, depending on the circumstances of the case, a marijuana offender may qualify for the Deferred Prosecution Program (DPP) or the First Offender Drug Program (FODP). Again, you should check with an attorney to determine whether you might be eligible to participate in either program.

Conclusion

Regardless of whether you disagree with what the law should be in regard to marijuana in Texas, it is currently illegal to use or possess. If you are arrested for possession of marijuana, you may qualify for a diversion program that will ultimately allow you to get your record fully expunged. Contact one of our attorneys today if you have pending marijuana charges in Tarrant County. We will be happy to discuss your options and defend your case.

Time Requirements for Juvenile Certification Texas

On the Clock: Time Limits to Try a Juvenile as an Adult

By | Juvenile | No Comments

Time Requirements on the State’s Power to Certify a Juvenile as an Adult

Time Requirements for Juvenile Certification TexasTexas Family Code Section 54.02 gives the juvenile court the power to transfer its exclusive jurisdiction over a juvenile case to a district court. This transfer of jurisdiction allows the State to treat a juvenile as an adult for purposes of prosecution. Section 54.02 actually lays out two different processes for transferring juvenile cases to adult court. The first process is used in cases where the juvenile is under the age of 18 at the time of certification. The second, which is laid out in Section 54.02(j), is for those cases in which a person has turned 18 prior to the filing of the case in juvenile court. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently upheld the time requirements placed on the power of the State to pursue post-18 certifications in Moore v. State (Case Opinion – 2017).

Section 54.02(j)’s Time Limits

Section 54.02(j) allows a juvenile court to transfer its jurisdiction to an appropriate district court for criminal proceedings if the person accused is 18 years of age or older at the time the petition is filed but was a juvenile at the time the offense was committed. During the transfer hearing, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “for a reason beyond the control of the State, it was not practicable to proceed in juvenile court before the 18th birthday of the person or after due diligence of the State, it was not practicable to proceed in juvenile court before the 18th birthday of the person because the State did not have probable cause to proceed in juvenile court and new evidence has been found since the 18th birthday of the person or the person could not be found.”

This section of the Family Code imposes on the prosecutors a duty to pursue cases in juvenile court whenever possible. In order to retain the power to prosecute cases after a person has aged out of the juvenile system, the State must show that the delay in prosecution was beyond its control. If it is unable to prove this, then the only choice available for a juvenile court in these situations is to dismiss the case.

The Issue in Moore v. State

In Moore, the accused was charged with Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child. He was alleged to have committed the offense when he was 16 years of age. Due to a heavy caseload and an error in one of the police reports, the detective did not send the case to the District Attorney’s Office until after Moore had turned 18. The prosecutor filed a certification petition in the case over a year later when Moore was 19 years old. The juvenile court transferred the case to district court.

Moore pled in adult court and received 5 years’ probation on a deferred adjudication. He then appealed the case claiming that the juvenile court lacked the jurisdiction to transfer the case because the State did not prove that the delay in filing the case was beyond its control. The State first claimed that law enforcement should not be considered “the State” under Section 54.02(j). The State then argued that the court should consider whether the reasons for the delay were unconstitutional. According to this argument, if the reasons for the delay were not in violation of Moore’s constitutional rights, then the State should be allowed to proceed with the certification regardless of who was to blame for the postponement in filing charges.

The Court’s Ruling

After considering the arguments of both sides, the ruling of the Court of Appeals, and the case law presented by the parties, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled on the case. First, the Court held that the term “the State” includes law enforcement and prosecutors collectively. The Court pointed out that the law consistently includes law enforcement in its use of this term.

The Court then dismissed the State’s notion that the requirements of Section 54.02(j) be treated like a claim of speedy trial, due process, or statute of limitations. The Court explained that the reason for the requirements in Section 54.02(j) is to limit the power of the State to prosecute a person as an adult for something that happened when he was a juvenile. In order for an exception to be made to this general rule, the State must prove that it was not at fault for the delay in prosecution.

Conclusion

The Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in Moore is consistent with the Texas Supreme Court’s rulings in other cases involving juvenile certifications. The courts are clear that juvenile cases should be handled in juvenile court when possible. This means that detectives and prosecutors working juvenile cases must be diligent in giving these cases the proper priority so that an accused juvenile does not age out of the system before his case can be heard by the juvenile court. In any case in which prosecution is delayed until after a person’s 18th birthday, the State will be required to prove that the reason for this lag time was beyond its control. And if the State is unable to meet this requirement, then the courts will prevent further prosecution in these cases.