News and Insights

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.