Steele Criminal Blog

Attorney Alan Steele




Monday, December 4, 2017

Dallas County Criminal Justice Elections

It’s election time again, with the filing deadline approaching on December 11.  I plan to do a list for those candidates that are part of the system—judges and prosecutors—as the information becomes available. Of course there are rumors in Dallas County about judges leaving and candidates for benches that are not listed here.  I leave those thoughts and expressions to others in the comments below this post, if you so choose.  As of now, to be updated as new information comes in, this is the list of candidates form the party websites.  The Democratic Party has included on their site those running that have not officially filed, and if I run across an announcement on a Facebook page, etc., then I will gladly list them below. 


I post names only here, with party affiliation for new candidates and (I) for the incumbent or current office holder, with minimal extraneous detail (it’s noted where judges have recently been appointed by Governor Abbott or where a judge is retiring, etc).  Any comment as to the individuals running I leave to you. 

304 (Juvenile)
Andrea Martin (I)
LeDeitra Adkins (D)

305 (Juvenile)
Cheryl Shannon (I)
Criminal District Courts
194
Ernest White (I)

195
Hector Garza (I)

203
Teresa Hawthorne (I)
Rocky Jones (D)

204
Tammy Kemp (I)
Steve Duplantis (D)

265
Jennifer Bennett (I)
Myra McIntosh (D)

282
Amber Givens-Davis (I)

283
Livia Lu Francis (newly appointed by Gov. Abbott)
Lela Mays (D)

291
Stephanie Mitchell (I)

292
Brandon Birmingham (I)

363
Tracy Holmes (I)

CDC1
Robert Burns (I)
Monique Ward (D)

CDC2-- Not up this year
Nancy Kennedy (I)

CDC3-- Not up this year
Gracie Lewis (I)

CDC4-- Not up this year
Dominique Collins (I)

CDC5
Carter Thompson

CDC6
Jeanine Howard (I)
Alison Grinter (D)
James Paul Rosemary (R)

CDC7
Stephanie Fargo (Recently appointed by Gov. Abbott)
Chika Anyiam (D)
Heath Harris (D)
Mark Watson (D)



County Criminal Courts

CCC1
Dan Patterson (I)

CCC2
Julia Hayes (I)

CCC3
Doug Skemp (I) (retiring)
Audrey Moorehead (D)

CCC4
Nancy Mulder (I)

CCC5
Lisa Green (I)

CCC6
Angela King (I)

CCC7
Elizabeth Crowder (I) (retiring)
Reneko Edwards (D)

CCC8
Tina Yoo Clinton (I)
Carmen White (D)

CCC9
Peggy Hoffman (I)

CCC10
Roberto Canas (I)

CCC11
Shequitta Kelly (I)

CCAP1 (County Criminal Court of Appeals 1)
Kristin Wade (I)
Mary Jo Taylor (D)

CCAP2 (County Criminal Court of Appeals 2)
Jeffrey Rosenfield (I) (Retiring)
Jennifer Jackson (D)
Bruce Kaye (D)
Johnny Lanzillo (D)
Marilyn Maybe (D)

District Attorney
Faith Johnson (Appointed by Gov. Abbott 2017)
Elizabeth Frizell (D)
John Creuzot (D)


Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Probation and Deferred Adjudication in Texas

Attorneys are frequently referred to as “counselor,” and with good reason.  An attorney should be more than someone that knows the law—they should be attorneys, advocates, and counselors.  The result is that sometimes what the general public thinks of as a “win” in a sentence is anything but a win.  This distinction frequently revolves around probation sentences. 

Texas law allows for different types of what is commonly referred to as probation or community supervision.  Lawyers and those familiar with the system will qualify those types as either “straight” or “deferred.”  Straight probation is a sentence to a term of confinement that is suspended, whereas deferred does not result in a conviction and no definitive time sentence is imposed.  To really understand the difference, how to succeed with either, and what the best sentence is for an individual, further explanation is needed.

Straight probation is as simple as a conviction for an offense and a sentence to a term in jail or prison.  Under Texas law, an individual cannot receive probation if the sentence is over 10 years in prison.  There is no need to get into the specifics at this point of what cases can or cannot receive probation, but not all cases are eligible for probation.  Some offenses allow for the jury to award probation but not a judge, some offenses will not permit the judge to award probation.  In either event, a finding of guilt is required and the ultimate sentence must not be over 10 years.   It is important to note that a defendant cannot request probation from a jury if the defendant has ever been convicted of a felony in this state or any other state or federal court.  This requirement is generally referred to as being eligible.  When an attorney says a client is not eligible for probation, he or she frequently means the defendant has a criminal record that prohibits a jury from awarding probation.  Straight probation can be a term up to 10 years in a felony case, but the times vary based on the offense level. What is important is that the sentence to time and the sentence to probation need not be the same.  A defendant can be given a misdemeanor sentence of 90 days in county jail probated for 18 months or 7 years in prison probated for 5 years, for example.  In each case the probated for time is how long the person is on probation and the sentence is what they would have served if not for the suspended sentence.

The other type of probation is deferred adjudication, frequently referred to simply as deferred.  Deferred adjudication requires the judge to believe that, while the evidence (the plea) substantiates a finding of guilt, it would be in the best interest of the defendant and society to delay that finding and place the defendant on community supervision.  Because this type of probation defers any finding of guilt, a jury cannot award deferred, because by sentencing they have by definition found a person guilty.  Instead, deferred is the result of a plea agreement between the prosecution and the defendant and approved by the judge.  This latter approval is important because all plea bargains are subject to approval by the judge.  A judge is not required to accept a plea bargain, but if they do reject the plea other options apply.  Some judges will not agree to deferred adjudication in certain types of cases and some courts believe the eligibility requirement for jury ordered community supervision should apply to all probation cases.  Terms vary just as they do in straight probation, but there is not actual time sentenced and the longest initial sentence is 10 years in a felony case.

In each type of probation, the law allows the judge to determine the conditions of probation.  A judge may order drug treatment, up to and including a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFP), time in jail, random drug testing, no contact with victims, or a multitude of other requirements as conditions of probation.  The standard conditions are regular reporting to a probation officer, payment of fines and costs, payment of probation fees, avoiding people that are known criminals, keeping a steady job and residence, etc.  Should a defendant on either type of probation violate even a single condition of probation, that can be grounds for a motion to be filed revoking probation, the Court to issue a warrant and have that person arrested. The defendant is then entitled to a hearing in front of the judge to determine if it is more likely than not that a condition was violated, and if a condition was violated to enter a sentence.  In the case of deferred adjudication, if the judge finds a condition was violated, that judge will find the defendant guilty (it was not done originally) and may sentence the defendant to any term in the range of punishment.  For example, a defendant placed on deferred adjudication for a first degree felony (5-99 years in prison) for a period of 8 years that violates his or her deferred adjudication can receive a sentence up to 99 years in prison.  If the defendant is on straight probation, then the judge is limited to the punishment that was originally sentenced, thus a defendant sentenced to 7 years probated for 5 years can be sent to prison for up to 7 years.  Plea bargaining does exist in these cases.

The first thing to understand is that the defendant is not entitled to a jury in a revocation proceeding, they will only receive a bench trial.  Second to note is that the state need only prove a single violation.  While prosecutors will allege every violation they believe a defendant committed, they are only legally required to prove one violation to prevail and have a jail or prison sentence entered.  Third, the burden of proof is lower.  The prosecution must prove a crime beyond all reasonable doubt obtain a guilty verdict.  However, a Motion to Revoke Probation or a Motion to Adjudicate Guilt is not a criminal trial but an administrative hearing, so the prosecutor only needs to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.  If they show the judge that it is slightly more likely than not that the defendant violated a condition of probation, they win.  Finally, deferred adjudication opens up the full range of punishment.  It should be noted that appeals courts are less likely to overturn a sentence for a revocation than for a criminal offense.  It’s also important to point out that, at a revocation hearing (here used to describe a Motion to Revoke or a Motion to Adjudicate Guilt) the issue is violation of probation conditions and not guilt or innocence of the underlying offense.  A trial court will not generally allow much argument that the defendant should not have been convicted or was never guilty in the first place (though there may be other ways to raise those arguments).

This all said, it’s important to understand the types of probation, the consequences of a plea to probation, how to be successful on probation, and a defendant’s honest ability to succeed on probation. Again, a defense attorney should be an advocate for a defendant and for the best result possible for that particular defendant, and should be able to counsel the defendant as to the best choice.  Just because a probated sentence sounds better on paper, or because deferred adjudication does not result in a conviction if the probation is successfully completed, does not mean that those are the best sentence for an individual defendant. Though an indigent defendant should receive the same opportunities as a wealthy one, a homeless defendant with no transportation is likely to have more problems making the regular appointments with a probation officer, completing required classes, etc.  It should always be the client’s choice in taking a plea, but all factors should be considered.  If you as a defendant know that you are unlikely to stop smoking marijuana, probation of any type might not be a good idea for you as you are likely to fail a drug test and be out the time, the money, and the efforts of probation will be wasted, and might cost you a better jail time deal.  Some honest self evaluation is necessary, and you have to speak openly to your attorney about your options. 

If probation is agreed, there are steps all defendants should take to be successful on probation and avoid revocation:

  • Always appear.  From time to time a defendant will say that his probation officer told him not to bother to come in if he didn’t have his probation fee or some other money.  Those that take that advice are then revoked for failure to report.  Texas law requires that the prosecution prove, in the case of court costs, probation fees, and fines, that the defendant had the money to pay and chose not to pay.  If you are broke, continue to report and deal with the money when the issue comes up.  Don’t give a real reason to revoke.
  • If you have a choice on which to pay first, pay restitution first, pay for classes and drug tests (UA’s), and pay your fees/fines/costs last.  There is a hierarchy and restitution is not specifically mentioned in the statute that requires the proof of ability to pay above.
  • Be ahead of the game.  If you are going to miss an appointment, go in to probation early, not late.  If you have to reset a class or an appearance, do it before the scheduled date and not after.  This allows you a better chance of not missing what you have to complete or being found to have failed to appear.
  • Complete classes early.  This applies to classes and to community service.  The earlier it is completed, the better.  If it is possible to complete all community service hours by working 3 or 4 weekends straight, do it.  If the sentence is 24 hours community service and you can work 2 days at 12 hours a day or 3 days at 8 hours a day, then do that. Take your own physical limitations and work schedule into account, but do these things as quickly as possible.  If they are completed, they can’t be used to revoke your probation and cannot bite you later.
  • Create a probation notebook.  The day you start probation, get a cheap notebook and keep photocopies of all certificates in the notebook.  I suggest a 3 ring binder with some inexpensive dividers that can separate a section for any test results (UA’s, hair tests, etc), a section for every class you take (Theft Intervention, Drug Offender Education Program, etc), a log sheet for every date you had contact with your probation officer or anyone related to your probation (11/20 attended this class, 11/30 met probation officer, 12/5 UA) and keep details of time, date, location, names, etc, a section for receipts such as fee payments, and a section for notes or correspondence (emails to your officer, notes of when you rescheduled or your officer called, whatever).  These things are important for as long as you are on probation.  Once you are officially released, most of this is no longer necessary (some classes will be required to regain a driver license for certain offenses so those certificates might be kept longer), but the idea is to document your progress and success in the event the probation department loses documents or an unethical officer attempts to have you revoked unlawfully.
  • Be courteous and polite, even if you don’t like people you are dealing with.  Some probation officers act like they hate the concept of probation or don’t believe in the system.  They will treat defendants like dirt, they will be sarcastic and rude.  As someone under their supervision, you have to develop a thick skin and be polite for at least the few minutes you interact with them.  Remember, they can make your life more miserable or recommend early release from probation or change in conditions to make your life easy. They can also suggest a motion to revoke be filed, and judges listen to how you treat their officers. This also applies in classes, where a defendant must participate and show involvement.  Be respectful and try to participate, but do not wisecrack, abuse others in group sessions, do not attempt to waste time or share unrelated information.  Probation officers consider the sharing of irrelevant and unnecessary information in a group session as non-participation and attempting to waste group time, and it is frowned upon.
  • Try to finish every probation requirement early.  If you meet certain time requirements on probation and have successfully completed the conditions of probation, the judge has the authority to release you from probation early.  This does not mean that they will or that they are required to, but it is always worth an attempt.  It is advisable to do additional things—take college or trade classes, work at promotions at work, do additional charity work, etc.—to show your growth and change if you hope to be released from probation early.  Judges look for evidence of rehabilitation, and the willingness to go above and beyond helps to demonstrate this.

There are other advantages and disadvantages to probation in Texas.  Deferred, for example, is eligible for a non-disclosure in certain cases, meaning only state agencies would be allowed to discover details of the case.  This non-disclosure option now also exists for certain DWI cases, even though DWI cases are not eligible for deferred adjudication.  Probation is expensive, but it may allow you to keep your driver license, where a conviction for certain offenses requires a mandatory suspension.  In the end, each case is different, and the only way to make the best decision is to speak to an attorney and have a meaningful discussion of all the options.  Probation is never a good idea if it only succeeds in setting an individual up to fail.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Restarting the Blog

This blog began back before I left private practice to join the Dallas County Public Defender's Office, a great experience that I do not regret.  Since leaving that office to be my own boss and deal with my clients in a way that I feel better adheres to my beliefs in the system, I have been back and forth with the blog, and it has gone largely ignored.  The Steele Firm is the new office, with locations in both Dallas and Fort Worth.  The firm model is slightly different, with fees being based on income to the extent possible-- a sliding scale.  The work, however, is mainly the same.  

I have posted some things on Facebook for The Steele Firm page, and some things on the makeshift website for the office, but haven't given much attention to concepts that interest both lawyers and the public on this blog.  Hopefully that is changing.

Since this blog began, my experiences have changed, as (I hope) have I.  This blog is to be about multiple concepts.   Forensics, for which I still have a soft spot coming from a fingerprint office in FWPD and being married to a fingerprint expert, not to mention conducting various mock trials and training for DPD Crime Scene, is likely to make an appearance.  Having graduate experience in criminal justice, that will also likely pop.  The idea is to address concepts clients and others should know, to discuss, and to vent.  

Welcome back.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The Fight to Legalize Marijuana Heats Up

This isn't really local criminal news, or for that matter Texas criminal news, but it's worth repeating all the same.  Among the many elections across the country last night for State and Federal representatives were a few interesting laws in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the City of Detroit.

Last night, Colorado became a clear leader in the effort to end prohibition of marijuana with Amendment 64.  As Huffington Post points out, Amendment 64 creates a full regulatory scheme for the production and sale of marijuana and ends the criminal consequences for individuals who possess at least small quantities of marijuana.  Of course, this is entirely in conflict with federal law, and the current administration may have something to say about it given their stance with medical marijuana dispensaries in California as noted here. Still, the voters of the state have chosen to receive tax dollars regulating marijuana rather than spend them prosecuting its possession.

Washington also made a move in this direction last night, with the passage of Initiative 502, which decriminalizes marijuana possession under an ounce.  Again, I502 sets up a regulatory system so the state can actually make some money instead of spending, and it that state actually set up specific laws related to DWI or DUI of marijuana.  KVAL of Eugene discusses some of the specifics. Most important, perhaps, is that it only stops arrest for possession under an ounce, but doesn't stop home growing, public display, or public use.  Again, it still has federal law to deal with, but the KVAL article suggests the state could make as much as $2 billion over a five year period from the legislation.

Oregon Measure 80 failed 55-45 according to Oregon Live.  That measure would have again allowed for legalization, taxation, and regulation.  However, according to the Register-Guard, proponents plan to get the measure before their state legislature in 2013, and if that fails get it back on the ballot with a better funded campaign next time around.

Finally, in the City of Detroit Prop M was on the ballot.  Prop M raised even more concerns that the other above laws that conflict with current federal law because Prop M also conflicts with state law in Michigan.  Essentially, Prop M says that any over the age of 21 in possession of up to an ounce of marijuana in the City of Detroit won't get prosecuted, according to the Michigan Chronicle.  You can bet Detroit PD had a fit over that idea, as the city ordinance wouldn't change state law or federal law, it would just tell them they cannot enforce it.  The Proposition passed easily in Detroit, so we have to keep an eye out for what happens next.

These are all interesting movements.  I'm not a supporter of marijuana usage, but I've often questioned the legitimacy of legalizing alcohol but not marijuana given some of the arguments made regarding which is more dangerous.  I know that the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana under Texas law would hurt me financially, more so in a small county like Hood County than in a county like Tarrant County, but it might also better fund public systems like the courts.  At least in some states, popular opinion is changing, and its a question as to whether Texas will ever follow.

Texas Legislative Filing Opens Monday

For those who are interested, the 83rd Session of the Texas Legislature begins on Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at noon.  Pre-filing of bills for the session begins this Monday, November 12, 2012.  For a complete list of important dates, check here.  After last night's elections, the status quo is not much different in Texas politics, but the every other year meeting of the legislature is always something important to watch.





Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Some Early Criminal Justice Election Results

Having now voted, behind a reasonably healthy line, here in Johnson County, I thought it might be prudent to throw out some early results.  That title, however, is somewhat misleading.  These are actually those candidates that are part of the criminal justice system here in Tarrant, Johnson, Hood, and Parker Counties that are unopposed.  That does, of course, include some appellate court news, but I'm going to stay away from the Supreme Court of Texas for now.

In Tarrant County, Judge George Gallagher of the 396th District Court, Judge Wayne Salvant of Criminal District Court 2, Judge Louis Sturns of the 213th District Court, and Sergio De Leon on Justice of the Peace #5 are all unopposed.  Obviously all but the latter are district courts that handle only criminal cases in Tarrant County, but the latter is included as a court of general jurisdiction.  The Second Court of Appeals will also not be seeing any changes, as Chief Justice Terrie Livingston and Justices Lee Ann Dauphinot, Sue Walker, and Bob McCoy are all unopposed.  On that note, it's good to see Dauphinot, perhaps the most knowledgable of the group in criminal cases, return to the bench.

In Johnson County, it appears that system, whatever you may think of it, will remain unchanged as well.  Sheriff Bob Alford, Judge John Neil of the 18th District Court, Judge Bill Bosworth of the 413th District Court, District Attorney Dale Hanna, and County Attorney Bill Moore are all unopposed.  Also Unopposed for Johnson County is the Chief Justice for the 10th Court of Appeals, Tom Gray.  For those that are unfamiliar, of the counties I generally talk about, Johnson is the only county covered by the 10th Court of Appeals.  Tarrant, Hood, and Parker County cases are all reviewed by the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth.

Parker County will also not be seeing many changes.  Sheriff Larry Fowler is unopposed, as is County Attorney John Forrest, District Attorney Don Schnebly, County Court at Law Judge Ben Akers, and 413th District Judge Graham Quisenberry.  Judge Trey Loftin of the 43rd District Court, appointed by Governor Rick Perry in 2010 to fill a mighty big chair (replacing Judge Don Chrestman), lost in the primary election to Craig Towson, who now runs unopposed as the new judge of the 43rd District Court.

Last, but certainly not least, for local elections is Hood County, where District Attorney Rob Christian, Sheriff Roger Deeds, and Justice of the Peace #4 Judge Danny Tuggle all run unopposed.  Also without opposition is the new County Attorney, Lori Kaspar, who will replace the retiring Kelton Conner.  Unlike all the other counties above, there is one county seat in Granbury that involves the criminal justice system and is up for grabs, but it belongs to a Justice of the Peace race.  Hood County has created a new JP Court, splitting JP1 and JP2 into separate courts, and the race is on for JP1.  However, the race is Republican vs. Democrat in a historically very Republican county.

On a final note, there are three contested seats on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest criminal court in the state, this time around.  While two of those races see incumbents facing challenges by Libertarian candidates, those being Barbara Hervey vs. Mark Bennet and Elsa Alcala vs. William Strange, one is a hotly contested race-- the race for Presiding Judge.  Ever controversial Judge Sharon Keller has a serious challenge from Keith Hampton, a defense attorney I know and respect very much.  There is also a Libertarian candidate, Lance Stott, but this case is very much a two person heat.  I commend you all to the following:



Update-- as of 9:42, early results have Presiding Judge Keller retaining her seat, along with Judge Hervey and Judge Alcala.  Keep an eye on statewide results here at the Secretary of State Website.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Police Distracted Driving and the Arlington Mayor's Denial

Last night, NBC 5 here in DFW ran a story on so called "distracted driving" and the Arlington Police Department.  Check out that story here.  After watching the story, I chose to give Arlington Mayor Robert Cluck the benefit of the doubt.  By that, I mean the story made clear that he either a) doesn't have a clue what's going on in the Arlington Police Department; b) is a fool who believes anything he is told; or c) is an absolute liar.  I chose to give the benefit of the doubt and believe that he is out of the loop and unaware of all things that occur in the department.

I say these things not because I have any ill will toward the man-- I don't have any problem with the mayor personally.  But his statements that Arlington Police Department are better trained, above all others, and that officers playing with their computers causing accidents may be a problem in other cities, but not Arlington, is absurd.  Arlington PD is not above and beyond all other departments in the area, and comes complete with its own share of problems.  Mayor Cluck is demonstrating what could easily become a top down failure to accept responsibility for failure and error.

The investigation done by Scott Friedman, @NBCDFWScott, began over the summer, but the Arlington police chief refused to speak with him at that time, so he got Cluck.  Cluck claimed that Arlington PD was above the fray and they had only 3 accidents over 2-3 years related to the use of in car computers while driving.  An open records request revealed that, if you believe Cluck, the PD gave him the wrong number, and they in fact had 18 such accidents over 3 years, all of which they described as minor.  My suggestion, however, is that the word "minor" is word play used by the city to downplay the reality of what these folks did.  The videos obtained by the news station show some nicely damaged police cars and officers driving into on coming traffic, causing minor injuries, running through dead end road barricades, and hitting cars with kids on board.  Not really anything minor about it, even if your define a minor accident as one without injury or transport to a hospital.

The most interesting thing to come out of this story is the hypocrisy of it all.  Arlington, as NBC notes, is one of the strongest in the state for anti-cell phone use while driving.  They fight about citizens emailing or texting while driving, but Cluck is more than okay with his officers flying around town playing on the computer and causing accidents.  It's ludicrous.  BTW, this is not a new concept to me.  Having worked in a police dispatch office long before law school, I can tell you that this problem is one that has been ongoing since at least the time of the small Mobile Data Terminals, or MDT's, that had the little screens and did little more than give an officer an address of a call and a few characters of what was going happening.

Cluck implies that Arlington Police can do this because, unlike the general public, they are "trained" to do this.  We know now that at least an average of 6 times a year, those well trained officers put the public's lives in danger, not because of a pursuit or because of urgent police business, but because they like to type and drive.  This is the double standard the public finds hard to swallow when cities like Arlington want to force new, money making ordinances and violations into place, and this lack of accountability is why many people just do not trust the police.