Skip to main content
Tag

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Case Law & Plea Archive | HLAW

Oct21
Love0

Can a Rejected Plea Bargain Offer be Revived?

ByPlea Bargain

Contrary to television portrayals, most criminal cases never reach trial. While it is difficult to put a number of it, I would say that 90 to 95% of criminal cases are resolved by dismissal or plea bargain. Our Fort Worth criminal defense attorneys put the interests of the client first and will always pursue a dismissal and sometimes attempt to reach a favorable plea deal with the prosecutor as an alternative to the uncertainty of trial.  But in some occasions, a trial is the only way to go. What follows is a recent case opinion from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarding a plea bargain situation gone wrong.

Rodriguez v. State (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 2015)

On advice from counsel, Israel Rodriguez rejected a ten-year sentence plea bargain. Rodriguez was convicted and received eight life sentences.

Rodriguez filed for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel; he believed his attorney’s advice regarding the plea offer was wrong. Rodriguez asked that the State be required to re-offer the ten-year deal.

The judge granted a new trial and ordered the State to re-offer the deal. The judge proceeded to reject the deal.

After denying the ten-year deal, the judge informed Rodriguez he could withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial or accept a 25-year sentence. Rodriguez rejected the 25-year sentence and filed a recusal motion, arguing that the judge had demonstrated prejudice. The judge recused, and a new judge was assigned.

Rodriguez filed a motion to require the State to re-offer the ten-year deal. The new judge said the original judge’s recusal had “wiped the slate clean,” including the ten-year plea offer, but he would accept a new agreement if one were presented. The state offered a plea deal of 25 years, which Rodriguez accepted. The judge accepted the plea agreement and executed the judgments of conviction.

Rodriguez argued on appeal that he was entitled to the original ten-year offer and the court was required to accept it. The court of appeals considered three factors: (1) whether Rodriguez would have accepted the original offer; (2) whether the State would have been likely to withdraw the offer; and (3) whether the judge would have likely accepted the agreement.

The court of appeals concluded Rodriguez had suffered inadequate representation. The court’s solution was for the State to re-offer the ten-year deal and have a judge who had not recused herself accept or reject the deal. The court did not agree that the judge was required to accept the ten-year deal. The case was remanded for the State to re-offer the deal.

The State filed for review of the court of appeals’ decision, alleging four errors:

(1) The voluntarily recusal should not have been considered.

(2) Nothing in the record supported the possibility of the original judge accepting the ten-year deal.

(3) The second judge should not have been required to order the State to re-offer the ten-year deal.

(4) The judgment of conviction should not have been reversed.

The CCA considered the same three factors considered by the court of appeals. Although Rodriguez’s convictions were vacated, he was still entitled to a determination of whether he had received effective counsel. The CCA agreed with the court of appeals that Rodriguez had been harmed by following his attorney’s advice in rejecting the offer. No evidence suggested Rodriguez would have rejected the deal. The State was not likely to withdraw the offer because the passage of time had made the victims’ testimony at trial unreliable.

The CCA said the only question was whether the first judge would have likely accepted the ten-year deal. No intervening circumstances would have given the judge a basis to reject the deal. However, Rodriguez did have an extensive criminal history, and the police reports for his charges were particularly damning. But nothing in the record indicated the judge would have rejected the ten-year deal if it had been presented to her prior to the trial. The CCA thus rejected the State’s second allegation of error.

The State agreed the first judge would have likely accepted the ten-year deal prior to trial, but it argued the voluntary recusal was irrelevant. No evidence indicated any prejudice against Rodriguez. Requiring the State to re-offer the ten-year deal and then rejecting it were proper rulings and did not require recusal. On the State’s first allegation, the CCA said, the court of appeals had erred.

The CCA sided with the State on its third allegation, finding Rodriguez had received exactly what he requested–a new trial with a clean slate and a decision on a plea agreement by a judge. The second judge was not obligated to give Rodriguez what the first judge had already given—consideration of the ten-year deal. Therefore, there was no requirement that the State re-offer the ten-year deal. The CCA did not consider the fourth allegation because its decisions on the first three allegations made the fourth issue moot. The CCA reinstated the 25-year sentence offered by the State, agreed to by Rodriguez, and accepted by the second judge.

An individual facing criminal charges will be advised by his Fort Worth criminal defense attorney regarding whether to accept the deal. Although the decision is ultimately up to the defendant, bad advice that ultimately leads to a worse outcome than the deal offered may present an opportunity for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Oct02
Love1

Court Sets Aside Fraud Conviction Based on the Meaning of One Common Word in the Statute

ByFraud

What does it mean to cause someone to fraudulently execute a document?

Roger and Aaron Liverman filed separate mechanic’s lien affidavits with the Denton County clerk, claiming that they had worked on Katheryn Payne’s home and had not been paid. The county clerk filed and recorded the liens, which is the customary practice. The mechanic’s liens were determined to be fraudulent, and the Livermans were charged with securing the execution of documents by deception. The Livermans were convicted and placed on community supervision.

On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the Livermans’ convictions. The State appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the case turned on an interpretation of statutory language, the CCA reviewed the case de novo; in other words, rather than reviewing the reasonableness of the lower court’s decision, the CCA made its own independent decision based on the facts and the statute.

Opinion: Liverman v. State, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 2015

The language of the statute under which the Livermans were convicted states that a person commits a crime if, “with intent to defraud or harm any person, he, by deception causes another to sign or execute any document affecting property or service . . . .” The case before the CCA boiled down to three questions: (1) What does the term “execute” mean in the statute? If nothing was executed, there was no offense. (2) Did the Livermans’ action of filing the fraudulent liens meet the definition of execution? (3) Who actually executes a mechanic’s lien when it is filed? The offense involves deceptively causing “another” to sign or execute a document. If the clerk’s actions constituted execution, the Livermans might be guilty. If the Livermans executed the affidavits themselves by filing them, then they could not be convicted under the statute.

Arguments against Fraudulent Execution of a Document

The State and the Livermans put forward a number of arguments for their respective positions. The arguments involved comparing the “sign and execute” language of the statute with a related provision that uses the phrase “file and record;” consideration of the legislative intent and history when the statute was enacted; and which action actually perfected the liens. After reviewing the arguments and performing its own analysis, the CCA concluded:

(1) The term “execute” means more than just to sign a document and involves the broader act of bringing a document to its final, legally enforceable form.

(2) When the Livermans filed the affidavits with the clerk, the affidavits accomplished their role in perfecting the mechanic’s lien. Therefore, the act of filing the affidavits was equivalent to execution.

(3) Because Texas law requires the person claiming a mechanic’s lien to “file” the affidavit, then the Livermans did execute the affidavits by filing them. However, the CCA considered whether the clerk’s actions might also constitute execution. Although the county clerk is required by law to record or index a filed affidavit, the clerk’s failure to do so does not invalidate the lien. If the clerk’s action of recording or indexing can be omitted and the affidavit still be valid, then the clerk’s actions clearly did not “execute” the affidavits.

But, asked the Court, did the clerk “execute” the affidavits by accepting them when the Livermans filed them? The CCA answered in the negative. The statutory requirement to file the affidavit “with the county clerk” means that the clerk is simply the recipient of the filing and plays no role in its execution.

Because no action of the clerk executed the affidavits, the CCA held, the Livermans did not cause “another” to “execute” the documents as required for the offense of which they were convicted. The CCA agreed with the court of appeals, with the result of setting aside the Livermans’ conviction.

Many people will recall President Bill Clinton’s grand jury testimony in the Monica Lewinsky case. When asked why he wasn’t lying when the told his aides that there was nothing going on between him and Miss Lewinsky, the President said “[i]t depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

While many will find the President’s response amusing, a Criminal Defense Attorney in Fort Worth may see an opportunity. Although not nearly so salacious as the Monica Lewinsky affair, the Livermans’ case truly turned on what the meaning of the word “execute” is.

A Criminal Defense Attorney in Fort Worth will understand and appreciate the nuances of the statutory language and may succeed in acquittal by arguing that the law does (or does not) say what it seems to say.

Jul27
Love1

Court Rules Indigent Defendant Must Pay for Independent Drug Test

ByDrug Crimes

Drug Crimes Can Come With Added Costs | Fort Worth Drug Crimes Defense Attorneys

Robert Ehrke was convicted of a drug crimes case – possession of between one and four grams of methamphetamine in a drug-free zone – and sentenced to seventy-five years in prison. The weight (1.6 grams) and composition of the substance were determined by a Department of Public Safety chemist.

In a pre-trial motion, Ehrke requested the trial court to provide for independent testing of the substance. Ehrke’s attorney argued that, because 1.6 grams was so close to the 0.99 gram for a lighter sentence, independent testing was justified.

The trial court agreed it was required to allow Ehrke’s counsel to inspect and examine the substance. However, because Ehrke did not demonstrate the need for the test or any reason why a second test would have different results, the judge denied the motion for independent testing. Ehrke’s counsel’s offer to secure payment for the testing did not change the judge’s decision.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court. The court based its decision on Ehrke’s failure to show a particular need for independent testing or how an independent chemist would arrive at a different result.

On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the CCA identified two issues: (1) whether Ehrke had a right to inspection of the substance by an independent expert and (2) whether the state was required to pay for such an inspection.

The Court noted the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for a defendant to inspect evidence material to the state’s case, but only if the defendant showed good cause for a request to inspect evidence. However, courts had found inspection mandatory if the evidence is material to the defendant’s case.

The CCA said that in a controlled substance case, if the defendant asks to inspect the substance, the court must allow inspection because the substance will necessarily be material to the defense–no showing of good cause is required.

The CCA addressed the question of what an “inspection” entails. Obviously, simply looking at the substance, which is apparently all the trial court offered Ehrke’s counsel, would not determine either its substance or its weight. The Court stated that in a controlled substance case, the right to pay for an independent chemist to analyze the substance is absolute.

On the second issue, the CCA acknowledged an indigent defendant’s right to a court-appointed (read “court-paid”) expert but said the defendant has the burden to provide specific justification for appointment of the expert. In Ehrke’s case, the CCA said, no specific justification had been provided. Even though Ehrke’s counsel explained the rationale for his request, he did not provide any evidence to question the original analysis by the DPS chemist, did not explain how independent testing was required for his defense and did not provide information regarding the complexity of the testing. According to the CCA, an absolute right to state-funded independent testing would be too great a financial burden to the County; therefore, appointment of an expert is required only if there is some preliminary evidence of a significant issue of fact to justify the appointment.

The Court remanded the case to the trial court for proceedings on the first issue.

The bifurcated decision in this case is perplexing. The Court said chemical analysis of an alleged controlled substance will always be material to a defendant’s case and discarded the Code’s requirement of a showing of good cause, making the right to independent testing absolute.

However, in the second issue, the Court seems to have abandoned its notion of materiality for a standard of affordability. On the part of the defendant, the Court cited case law that the state is not required to provide an indigent defendant with everything a wealthier defendant might be able to afford. More importantly, the Court concluded the financial burden to the County of paying for independent chemical testing in all controlled substance cases would be too great.

Examples abound of wealthy defendants procuring a better defense than an indigent defendant.  However, if an issue is always material to an indigent defendant’s case to the point of making the right to independent testing absolute, it seems odd that the indigent defendant’s right can be defeated by fiscal concerns of the County, which is in a much better position to pay for testing.

Contact our Drug Crimes Defense Attorneys Today for a FREE Consultation of Your Case at (817) 993-9249

Our Fort Worth criminal defense attorneys are experienced in defending drug crimes cases, including possession, possession with intent to distribute, manufacture, and more. If you are under investigation or have a pending charge, don’t wait. Contact us today.

Jul18
Love0

Intoxication Assault, Felony DWI, and Double Jeopardy

ByDWI

DWI Caselaw Update | Fort Worth Criminal Defense Lawyers

The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy is often viewed as a guarantee against having to stand trial for an offense if an individual has already been found not guilty in a previous trial. It also applies to situations where a defendant is charged with more than one offense: Is it double jeopardy if a defendant receives multiple punishments for the same transaction for multiple offenses?

Yousef Benson was convicted of two offenses as a result of a 2010 traffic accident that seriously injured another individual–intoxication assault and felony DWI.  The offense of intoxication assault occurs when a person “by accident or mistake . . . while operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, by reason of that intoxication causes serious bodily injury to another.”  Felony DWI occurs when a person “is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place” and the person has been previously been convicted of two DWI offenses.

The appellant argued that the two offenses should be considered the same offense, which would prevent the imposition of multiple punishments. The state argued that the offenses were separate and that multiple punishment was allowed. The principle point of contention was whether the previous conviction requirement for felony DWI is an element of the offense or is a punishment enhancement.

The Court of Criminal Appeals performed an “elements” analysis. The elements analysis looks at the specific elements of each crime. If each crime has the same elements, then a court presumes that the offenses are the same for purposes of double jeopardy. Conversely, if two offenses have different elements, the presumption is that the two offenses are separate. In either case, the presumption can be rebutted by showing that the legislature clearly intended the opposite result.

In Benson, the CCA focused on felony DWI’s requirement of two previous convictions. In some cases, such requirements are viewed as creating a separate offense; in other cases, they are considered an enhancement of the level or the punishment for the offense. As Benson acknowledged, the CCA had already held in earlier cases that the required prior convictions for felony DWI constitute an element of the offense, calling them “specific attendant circumstances” that help define the offense. In other words, intoxication assault and felony DWI are presumed to be separate offenses, and a defendant can receive a sentence for each offense.

The CCA then turned to the question of whether there was evidence to rebut the presumption: Did the legislature intend for the two offenses to be treated as one? The court acknowledged that the two offenses are in the same chapter of the criminal code, a factor that supports the same-offense position. But the court looked at the language of the statute and concluded that if the legislature had intended the two offenses to be the same, they would have structured the statutory language differently.

The court also looked at the name of the offenses, pointing out that both offenses have some form of the word “intoxicate” in their names, although used as a modifier in each name rather than as a noun. The court concluded that this factor slightly favored the same-offense position.

The court noted that the two offenses have the same punishment ranges. Although this factor can favor either position, the court concluded that it slightly favored treating the same-offense view.

The court looked at the focus of the offenses and found intoxication assault to be a result-oriented offense (causing serious bodily injury) and felony DWI to be a conduct-oriented (driving while intoxicated) or circumstances-oriented (two prior convictions) offense. Unlike intoxication assault, felony DWI does not even require a victim. This analysis favored treating the offenses as separate.

Finally, the court considered the history of the two offenses and concluded that the various revisions of the criminal code supported the position that the two offenses are separate.

In its final analysis, the court recognized some factors supported Benson’s argument (same offense). However, the court considered the factors supporting the state’s position (separate offenses) as “more substantial.” In the court’s view, the evidence did not support the view that the legislature intended one punishment. Therefore, separate punishment for each offense was not a violation of Benson’s right to protection from double jeopardy.

Jul08
Love0

“Everybody Out!” Court Rules the Right to a Public Trial Forfeited

ByPublic Trial

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant’s right to a “public” trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently confronted the question of whether and under what circumstances a criminal defendant may lose that right.

Bobby Joe Peyronel was convicted of a criminal offense. During a break in the punishment phase of Peyronel’s trial, an unidentified female supporter approached a juror and asked how it felt to convict an innocent man.

Fearing juror intimidation and apparently unable to identify the woman, the prosecutor asked the judge to exclude all female members of Peyronel’s family from the courtroom. Peyronel objected, arguing that granting the request would exclude Peyronel’s wife and daughter and give the jury the impression Peyronel had no supporters. (The CCA’s decision did not explain why the judge did not just question the juror, identify the woman who made the comment, and exclude her from the courtroom.)

In a possible overreaction, the judge ordered all witnesses and observers out of the courtroom. The punishment phase of the trial proceeded with witnesses waiting outside the courtroom until time to testify.

Peyronel appealed, arguing a violation of his constitutional right to a public trial. No one disputed that right. However, the State argued that because Peyronel did not ask the trial judge to do anything and did not inform the judge that he planned to appeal based on an alleged Sixth Amendment violation, Peyronel had forfeited his public-trial right.

The Court first considered whether the right to a public trial is mandatory (must be enforced no matter what a defendant says or does), waivable (can be knowingly and intentionally relinquished by a defendant), or forfeitable (can be given up if a defendant does not insist on enforcement). The court briefly reviewed cases from other jurisdictions and concluded the public-trial right could be forfeited.

The Court then considered whether Peyronel had forfeited his public-trial right. Although Peyronel objected to the trial judge’s order to clear the courtroom, the CCA did not consider that to be the equivalent of asserting a violation of his constitutional right. The court said there was no “magic language” Peyronel needed to use to assert the violation, but he at least had to specifically state what he wanted the trial judge to do and upon what grounds his request was based. The CCA determined Peyronel did not meet that standard and, as a result, forfeited his right to a public trial.

Read the full opinion: Peyronel

In a strong dissent, Justice Johnson noted that the prosecutor’s request was just to exclude female family members from the courtroom and Peyronel objected, arguing that such a broad action would remove his wife and daughter. Justice Johnson said that objection was sufficient on its own and it also implied Peyronel’s objection to a complete exclusion.

Justice Johnson compared the situation to buying an appliance. If a customer has a two-foot-wide space for an appliance and a seller tries to sell an appliance that is two inches wider, the customer will object. By objecting to that appliance, Justice Johnson said, the customer is also making it clear that he would object to the seller substituting an appliance even wider than two feet, two inches. According to Justice Johnston, when Peyronel objected to the exclusion of female members of his family because it was too broad to accomplish the intended purpose, that also constituted an objection to the exclusion of even more people and made it clear to the trial judge that his order to clear the courtroom was too broad as well.

Peyronel v. Texas is interesting in at least two respects. Anecdotally, it seems odd that neither the majority nor the dissenters were troubled at all by the fact that the trial judge went beyond the prosecutor’s request and ordered everyone from the courtroom rather than trying to identify the woman who was the object of concern and removing her.

More fundamentally, the principle that some constitutional rights can be waived is well established; for example, Miranda rights are frequently waived. But, the court’s opinion suggests that a defendant can lose his constitutionally protected public-trial right by not speaking up, or, presumably, by speaking up but not speaking loudly or eloquently enough.

Jun17
Love1

The Confrontation Clause and Testimony From a Supervising DNA Analyst

ByConfrontation Clause

As Fort Worth criminal defense attorneys, we often encounter confrontation issues during trial. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to confront witnesses against him. This provision prevents admission of a “testimonial” statement–a formal statement similar to trial testimony–unless the person who made the statement can be cross-examined or is unavailable but was previously cross-examined (in a deposition, for example). In the absence of cross-examination, a criminal defense attorney in Fort Worth would object to admission of the statement as evidence.

In Paredes v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals considered how the Confrontation Clause applies to DNA testimony based on computer-generated data obtained through batch DNA testing. During a robbery, two victims were shot and killed. Jovany Paredes asked Jessica Perez to wash the shirt he was wearing during the robbery. Instead, Perez gave the shirt to police, who sent it to a lab for DNA testing. DNA from blood on Paredes’s shirt matched one of the victims.

At trial, Robin Freeman, the lab director, explained that DNA testing involves four analysts. The fourth analyst interprets raw data from a computer to determine whether there is a DNA match. In Paredes’s case, Freeman herself compared the DNA profile from the blood stain to Paredes’s DNA profile. Freeman testified that she did not personally observe each of the analysts performing the first three steps but that any problem in the analysis would have been obvious. Freeman testified that the ultimate opinion was hers and that she was testifying regarding her opinion.

Paredes’s defense attorney objected, arguing that he was entitled to cross-examine the other analysts. The State said those analysts just took “physical stuff,” placed it into instruments and applied chemicals. Freeman, the State said, was the one who did the interpretation that was presented to the jury. The judge agreed with the State, and Paredes was convicted of capital murder.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Freeman’s testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause. After the Court of Appeals decision, the CCA decided in Burch v. State that admission of a drug test lab report did violate the Confrontation Clause because the testifying witness stated that the report was a “surrogate” for the technician who performed the test. Paredes appealed based on Burch. The CCA vacated the Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case to consider whether Burch affected the decision in Paredes.

The Court of Appeals made the same decision the second time, distinguishing Paredes, where the lab director had knowledge of the tests used and conducted the crucial analysis, from Burch, where the testifying lab supervisor had not observed or performed any part of the drug test or its analysis. Because Paredes’ attorney had the opportunity to cross-examine the person who conducted the actual analysis that linked him to the crime, Paredes’ Confrontation Clause rights had not been violated.

Paredes appealed to the CCA again. The Court reviewed three U.S. Supreme Court cases involving forensic reports. In the first two cases, the Supreme Court had found the forensic reports inadmissible because only a “certificate of analysis” was presented as evidence and a testifying witness had not actually performed the test.

In the third case, a DNA case, an outside forensics specialist testified that the lab-created DNA profile matched the defendant’s DNA profile. The Supreme Court held that this evidence did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

Based on the Supreme Court cases (Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming) and the decision in Burch, the CCA ruled against Paredes. The CCA relied on the fact that Freeman, the testifying witness, had actually performed the crucial analysis and had testified to her own conclusions. Further, the lab director had testified regarding the quality assurance system at the lab that would alert the director if the test were done improperly. The CCA also distinguished this case because Freeman had relied on raw, computer-generated data in reaching her conclusions, rather than relying on another analyst’s report. Because Paredes was given the opportunity to question Freeman regarding her opinion, the CCA held that his Confrontation Clause rights were not violated.

A Fort Worth criminal defense attorney whose client is facing forensic expert testimony will carefully consider Paredes. Challenges to DNA evidence may be more difficult, particularly if the testifying witness is the individual who actually translated the raw data into a conclusion regarding a DNA match. A criminal defense attorney in Fort Worth will carefully monitor the application of Paredes to cases with similar, yet different, facts.

Jun03
Love1

Asleep in a Running Vehicle: Sufficient Evidence of “Operating” for DWI?

ByDWI

Can I be Arrested for DWI for Sleeping in My Car?

One of the requirements for a DWI in Fort Worth is straightforward–the intoxicated individual must be “operating” a vehicle while intoxicated. Any DWI attorney in Fort Worth would tell you that basic requirement. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently considered the question of whether an individual who is passed out in a running, yet stationary, vehicle is “operating” the vehicle for DWI purposes. In Murray v. State, the court answered in the affirmative.

Chad Murray was passed out in his running truck in the early hours of the morning. Deputy James McClanahan observed Murray’s truck with its lights on, parked partially on the shoulder of Highway 22 and partially in a driveway near a fireworks stand. Deputy McClanahan observed exhaust coming from the truck but could not see anyone inside. The Deputy approached the truck and saw Murray asleep in the driver’s seat. The truck was indeed running. The transmission was in “park,” and the radio was on high volume. Deputy McClanahan finally succeeded in waking Murray up and, after Murray’s bungled attempts failed, in obtaining Murray’s ID. The deputy reported that he immediately smelled alcohol in the truck when Murray opened the window and that Murray appeared very intoxicated. Murray failed a field sobriety test and was charged with DWI.

At trial, Murray was found guilty and sentenced to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. The jail sentence was suspended, and Murray was placed on two years of community supervision. Murray appealed his conviction to the Seventh Court of Appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence at trial to prove that he was actually operating his truck and that he was, therefore, not guilty of DWI. The court of appeals agreed and reversed Murray’s conviction, holding that, although it was possible to infer from the circumstances that someone drove Murray’s truck to the location where it was found, there was no evidence as to when that occurred or whether the driver was intoxicated at the time. The Prosecuting Attorney appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals based on the question of whether Murray could have been found guilty of DWI without direct evidence that he was operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

The CCA took exception to the lower court’s conclusion, pointing to evidence that the vehicle was running, that Murray was in the driver’s seat, that Murray was the only one in the vehicle and that he was the only person in the vicinity. The court also pointed to the fact that there were no alcoholic beverages or containers in the vicinity and that the Deputy’s conclusion that Murray was very intoxicated was reasonable; Murray even admitted to the Deputy that he had been drinking. Because Murray was intoxicated, no one else was around, and there was no alcohol in the area, the court found it reasonable for the jury to infer that Murray had driven his truck to the location on Highway 22 and had done so while intoxicated.

Justice Meyers disagreed and in a dissenting opinion argued that allowing Murray’s DWI conviction to stand was comparable to convicting someone for possession of marijuana based solely on the individual being high and smelling of marijuana. Justice Meyers believed that being passed out behind the wheel of a running vehicle is not enough to be considered “operating” the vehicle; operation of a vehicle requires some action to enable the use of the vehicle, even something as simple as turning the key in the ignition. For DWI purposes, there must be evidence that the action was taken while the individual was intoxicated. For Justice Meyers, inferring these facts from the evidence presented was a leap too big for a jury to make.

The case is instructive for anyone charged with DWI in Fort Worth. A trial jury will have wide latitude in drawing conclusions regarding whether you were operating the vehicle while intoxicated, even if an officer does not directly observe you doing so. If you find yourself in this predicament, you should consult a DWI attorney in Fort Worth. Do not assume that you will get off on a technicality. Chad Murray didn’t.

Feb08
Love2

Release to a Safe Place: Mitigation of Aggravated Kidnapping

ByKidnapping

Under Texas Penal Code § 20.04(d), a kidnapper who voluntarily frees his victim in a safe place reduces his or her punishment level for aggravated kidnapping from a first-degree to a second-degree felony. In construing a “safe place,” Texas courts consider seven factors:

  1. the remoteness of the location,
  2. the proximity of help,
  3. the time of day,
  4. the climate,
  5. the condition of the victim,
  6. the character of the location and surrounding neighborhood, and
  7. the victim’s familiarity with the location or neighborhood.

However, these factors are merely aids in defining what constitutes a “safe place,” which is made on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind the totality of the circumstances.

In Butcher v. State, the appellant kidnapped the nine year-old complainant at knife point while the complainant was walking to school. After putting the complainant in his car, the appellant drove her to his apartment, bound her hands, and put her in his closet. After eight hours, the appellant decided to release the complainant and dropped her back off at the site of the kidnapping.

The appellant argued that because he returned the complainant back to the site of abduction during day-time, he released her in a safe place since the complainant’s mother allowed her “to walk to and from the school bus stop by herself before this incident, [the complainant] did not ask a passing mailman for help after she was released, and that [the complainant’s] mother described [the complainant] as independent.”

Applying the factors to Butcher, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals held, nonetheless, that because the site of the kidnapping was “desolate,” the complainant was released in the middle of the road, the appellant kept the complainant’s cell phone, and the complainant’s family did not have a home phone, the site of the kidnapping was not a safe place.

Moreover, the Texas Court of Criminal appeals distinguished Butcher with Storr v. State. In Storr, the appellant had kidnapped the complainant, but, similarly, released him back at the site of the abduction. The Court held that the area was a safe place because the complainant was college-aged, released at a post office during business hours near his university, and he had available transportation. However, the complainant in Butcher was nine years old, released in the middle of a desolate road, did not have available transportation or a phone, and returned home with nobody there, thus rendering the site of the kidnapping unsafe.

Feb03
Love0

Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty

ByDeath Penalty

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court determined that the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment bars the execution of mentally retarded persons. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

The Court reasoned that neither retribution nor deterrence could be achieved by executing mentally retarded persons and that, because mentally retarded persons have a reduced ability to participate in their own defense, there is an enhanced risk that they would be sentenced to death unnecessarily.  However, the Supreme Court left it to the individual states to determine which offenders fit the definition of “mental retardation,” in order to enforce this constitutional restriction.

In Ex Parte Briseno, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals established non-mandatory guidelines to determine “that level and degree of mental retardation at which a consensus of Texas citizens would agree that a person should be exempted from the death penalty.” 135 S.W. 3d 1 (2004).  If an offender meets the definition of mental retardation, then the guidelines are designed to consider some more subjective criteria. The definition of mental retardation that the CCA adopted was:

(1) Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, generally shown by an IQ of 70 or less, (2) accompanied by related limitations in adaptive functioning, (3) the onset of which occurs prior to the age of 18.

If a person meets that definition, the following guidelines were designed to help factfinders in criminal trials focus upon weighing the evidence as indicative of mental retardation or of a personality disorder:

  • Did those who knew the person best during the developmental stage – his family, friends, teachers, employers, and authorities – think he was mentally retarded at that time, and, if so, did they act in accordance with the determination?
  • Has the person formulated plans and carried them through, or is his conduct impulsive?
  • Does his conduct show leadership, or does it show that he is led around by others?
  • Is his conduct in response to external stimuli rational and appropriate, regardless of whether it is socially acceptable?
  • Does he respond coherently, rationally, and on point to oral or written questions, or do his responses wander from subject to subject?
  • Can the person hide facts or lie effectively in his own or others’ interests?
  • Putting aside any heinousness or gruesomeness surrounding the capital offense, did the commission of that offense require forethought, planning, and complex execution of purpose?

The CCA cautioned that these factors should not be considered in isolation, but rather in the context of the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in the Atkins decision.

In 2012, the CCA considered a capital murder habeas case (Ex Parte Sosa) wherein the applicant alleged that he was mentally retarded at the time of the offense.  The habeas court found that the applicant established mental retardation.  The CCA cited some inconsistencies and ultimately remanded the case back to the convicting court for the judge gather more information and consider the Briseno factors in determining whether the applicant was (or is) indeed mentally retarded.

This is an interesting area of law to me.  I’ve had the occasion to dig into some literature on autism, and at first glance it would seem that some autistic indviduals (those that are higher on the spectrum) might satisfy the factors laid out by the CCA.  Of course, the Briseno and Atkins cases deal only with the death penalty and capital punishment, but as far as retribution and deterrence go, this could be good extenuation and mitigation evidence for the factfinder to consider in other cases as well.

Jan27
Love0

DWI: Is Passing on the Shoulder Evidence of a Traffic Offense?

ByDWI

DWI Conviction Overturned | Passing on the Shoulder Permitted in Certain Circumstances

In many ways, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals also acts the State’s highest traffic court. What follows is a synopsis of Lothrop v. State, wherein the CCA opines on the legality of using the right shoulder of a road to pass a slower vehicle.

In Lothrop, the police stopped Appellant after observing him use the right shoulder of the road to pass a vehicle that was slowing down.  Appellant was later arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). At trial, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence gained from the stop, arguing that the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to make the stop. Appellant pointed to Section 545.058(a) of the Texas Transportation Code, which provides:

(a) An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway of that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only:

(1) to stop, stand, or park;

(2) to accelerate before entering the main traveled lane of traffic;

(3) to decelerate before making a right turn;

(4) to pass another vehicle that is slowing or stopped on the main traveled portion of the highway, disabled, or preparing to make a left turn;

(5) to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass;

(6) as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or

(7) to avoid a collision.

The trial court denied the motion and Appellant pled guilty to DWI. The 2nd Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) affirmed the conviction, holding that “driving on an improved shoulder, regardless of circumstance, is prima facie evidence of an offense, and that Section 545.058(a) merely establishes defenses that a defendant may raise at trial.”

Think again, said the Traffic Court (a.k.a. CCA):

[T]he offense of illegally driving on an improved shoulder can be proved in one of two ways: either driving on the improved shoulder was not a necessary part of achieving one of the seven approved purposes, or driving on an improved shoulder could not have been done safely. Merely driving on an improved shoulder is not prima facie evidence of an offense. Thus if an officer sees a driver driving on an improved shoulder, and it appears that driving on the improved shoulder was necessary to achieving one of the seven approved purposes, and it is done safely, that officer does not have reasonable suspicion that an offense occurred.

With that, the CCA reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case back to the trial court.   So there you have it – your traffic lesson for today from the CCA. You are free to drive on the improved shoulder of the road (without worrying that you will be pulled over) IF you are doing it safely and for one of the seven listed purposes.