Over 8 Years of Judicial Experience
Texas A&M Graduate Class of '85
Over 25 Years experience as a practicing attorney

If you are involved in an accident while you are intoxicated, it can result in serious charges with significant penalties. This was demonstrated by the recent arrest of a UFC fighter who was charged with 20 crimes following a DUI related accident in which two people lost their lives. If you are charged with multiple DUI crimes following an accident you should speak with an experienced Texas DUI defense attorney regarding your available defenses.

Facts Regarding the Alleged Incident

Allegedly, the fighter was involved in a car accident in August of 2018 that caused the death of two women. The accident occurred in the early morning of August 18, 2018, on a freeway in Florida. It is alleged that the fighter veered his SUV into the path of a tractor trailer, hitting the tire of the tractor trailer and setting off a chain reaction that lead to an accident involving three other cars. The fighter then struck a guard rail which caused his SUV to propel into the path of a car, causing the car to hit the guard rail and flip over. Two of the passengers in the car were killed and the driver sustained serious injuries. The fighter and another driver were treating for injuries as well.

It is reported that immediately after the accident, a witness observed the driver throwing an object over a concrete barrier. When the police investigated the accident, they collected the object, which was a tool used to grind marijuana. The police also spoke to the fighter, who appeared to be intoxicated. Specifically, his speech was slurred, and he had an odor of alcohol. The police also noted a bag of white powder on the passenger seat of the fighter’s SUV, which was later determined to be cocaine. The police reportedly obtained samples of the fighter’s blood from the airbag and interior of his car.

Continue reading →

Most people are familiar with the phrase “double jeopardy” and generally understand it to mean that you cannot be convicted twice for the same criminal offense. While many people understand the basic concept of double jeopardy, the precise protections the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution provides is not always entirely clear. Recently, the United States Supreme Court made great strides towards narrowing and defining the Double Jeopardy Clause, in a case in which the Court analyzed whether similar crimes charged by the state and federal government constitute the “same offense.” If you are charged with one or more crimes, you should speak with a skilled Texas criminal defense attorney to discuss whether you may be afforded protection from multiple convictions under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Factual Background of the Subject Case

Reportedly, the defendant was driving his car in Mobile, Alabama when he was stopped by a police officer due to a damaged headlight. The police officer searched the defendant’s car and found a loaded gun. The defendant was previously convicted of second-degree robbery, a violent felony, and therefore was prohibited from owning a firearm under Alabama law. He was subsequently charged with violating the state law barring him from possessing a gun and pleaded guilty. The defendant was then indicted for the same crime under federal law. He filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the federal charge was the same as the state offense and therefore, exposed him to double jeopardy. The district court denied his motion and the issue was ultimately appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

What Constitutes the Same Offense?

The Court affirmed the district court ruling, upholding the separate sovereigns doctrine. Under this doctrine, the state and federal government are considered separate sovereigns, and therefore, a state criminal charge and a federal criminal charge do not constitute the same offense. The Court noted that while the separate sovereignty doctrine is often referred to as an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, it is not an exception but is explicitly provided for in the text. Specifically, the Court noted that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits more than one prosecution for the “same offense”, not for the same actions or conduct. The court explained that “offense” is the term used to refer to a violation of a law, and sovereigns draft laws. Therefore, if the same conduct constitutes a violation of distinct laws from separate sovereigns, it is not the same offense.

Continue reading →

It is common knowledge that when a person causes harm, he or she may be held liable for any damages sustained by the injured party. There are certain exceptions to this rule, however, such as when the person that causes the harm is employed by the government. In such cases, the Tort Claims Act may preclude liability against the person as an individual. The implications of the Tort Claims Act was recently analyzed by the Supreme Court of Texas, in a case in which an individual was killed by an off duty police officer. If you suffered harm due to the negligent acts of a government employee, you should consult a knowledgeable Texas personal injury attorney to discuss your options for seeking damages.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant, who was employed as an officer with a Texas police department, worked as a courtesy patrol officer at an apartment complex. Upon arrival at the apartment complex one evening, he noticed an individual in a car allegedly engaged in a crime. The defendant approached the car and identified himself as a police officer and asked the individual to step out of the car. The individual ignored the defendant and started to drive away. The defendant drew his weapon and fired shots at the vehicle. One of the shots hit the individual, who ultimately died from his injuries.

It is alleged that the individual’s estate sued the defendant in state court, alleging he was an employee of the apartment complex, and in federal court, alleging he was acting under color of state law and accordance with his police training. Following discovery in the state case, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the election of remedies provision of the Tort Claims Act. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed.
Continue reading →

An arrest record can follow a person for years and may cost him or her employment opportunities and financial hardship, even if the person was not convicted or was ultimately pardoned. In certain cases, however, a person can seek an expunction and have all records and files relating to the arrest removed.  Expunction is not available in all cases, however, as illustrated in a recent Texas appellate court case, where the court reversed a prior order granting an expunction, on the basis it was improperly granted. If you were previously arrested and would like to seek an expunction you should consult a skilled Texas criminal defense attorney to discuss whether you may be able to request the removal of any records relating to your arrest.

Facts Regarding the Defendant’s Arrest

Reportedly, the defendant was arrested for, and charged with, larceny and theft by check. She pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of issuance of bad checks. She was subsequently convicted and fined and ordered to pay court costs. Almost thirty years later, she filed a petition to expunge her arrest records, stating she was not convicted of an offense relating to her arrest. The Texas Department of Public Safety filed a response stating that the arrest resulted in a final conviction. Following a hearing, the court issued an order granting expunction. The Department of Public Safety appealed.

Grounds for Expunction

Expunction is a right provided for under the Texas Criminal Procedure Code. Under the applicable statute, a person who was arrested for a felony or a misdemeanor is entitled to have the records and files relating to his or her arrest expunged if he or she was tried for the offense for which he or she was arrested and was subsequently acquitted. A person is also entitled to an expunction if he or she was convicted of the offense for which he or she was arrested but was then pardoned. Lastly, a person may seek an expunction if he or she has been released and the charge did not result in a final conviction and is no longer pending.
Continue reading →

In the legal realm, “negligence” typically refers to a civil claim in which an injured party alleges that another person breached a duty of care owed to the injured party and thereby caused the injured party harm. In Texas, however, there are certain instances in which a person can face criminal charges due to negligence. For example, a Texas bartender is currently facing criminal negligence charges for allegedly serving an intoxicated patron.  If you are charged with criminal negligence or another crime it is critical to engage a skillful Texas criminal defense attorney to assist you in formulating a strong defense.

Facts Regarding the Alleged Criminal Negligence

Reportedly, the bartender was working at a bar in Plano in 2017, when she served alcoholic beverages to a 32-year-old man, despite evidence that he was already intoxicated. Text messages obtained from the bartender’s phone indicate that the man had a knife in the bar and stated he was going to “go do some dirty work.” The bartender also texted a friend about the man’s excessive drinking. The bartender, who socialized with the man outside of the bar, called the police after the man left the bar to report his behavior.

It is alleged that after the man left the bar, he went to the home of his estranged wife where a party was being held. He then fatally shot his wife and seven other individuals. The man was killed by police who responded to the shooting. Following his death, it was determined that his blood alcohol level was over four times the legal limit for driving in Texas.
Continue reading →

During criminal trials in Texas, it is not uncommon for either party to use demonstrative evidence such as video or audio recordings, or charts or drawings, to make issues clearer for the jury and to help the jury understand the evidence. The jury is still required to determine whether a defendant is guilty based on the factual evidence presented, however. Thus, if the State presents demonstrative evidence that induces the jury to come to a decision based on matters not in evidence, it can result in an unfair verdict. A Texas appellate court recently analyzed when demonstrative evidence goes too far, in a case in which the State showed a video of a lion at the zoo trying to eat a baby during a robbery trial. If you are currently charged with robbery or any other crime it is essential to retain a knowledgeable Texas criminal defense attorney to defend you against the charges you face in hopes of allowing you to retain your rights.

The Alleged Robbery and Subsequent Trial

Allegedly, in 2015, the defendant entered a convenience store and when no one else was around went up to the cashier and stated it was a “stick up” and that he had a weapon. He never showed the cashier a weapon, however. He then demanded money from the cashier and took food and beverages as well before walking out. He was apprehended a short time later with the items and money he stole in a backpack. He did not have any weapons when he was stopped. He was subsequently charged with robbery.

It is reported that during the punishment phase at trial, the State showed a video of a lion behind glass at the zoo appearing to attempt to eat a baby. Defense counsel objected to the use of the video, but the objection was overruled. The State then likened the defendant to the lion, suggesting he posed a threat outside of jail and should receive an enhanced sentence. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to 50 years in prison, after which he appealed.
Continue reading →

Read Original story HERE.

A Wisconsin DUI case in which police officers ordered the blood of an unconscious man be drawn for evidence without first getting a warrant was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Prosecutors argued that drawing the blood of unconscious drivers helps convict those who kill thousands of people a year in alcohol-related car accidents, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. They said the process of getting a warrant is too inconvenient and that Wisconsin’s implied consent law does not require officers to get a warrant before drawing the blood of those suspected of driving while intoxicated, including individuals who are unconscious at the time.

Prior convictions can have a detrimental impact during sentencing for a subsequent crime. For example, if a person who was previously convicted of a crime of violence is then convicted of another crime, he or she may face an enhanced sentenced due to the prior conviction. A federal appellate court recently analyzed whether an assault of a peace officer constituted a crime of violence so as to allow an enhanced sentence, in a case arising out of Texas. If you are charged with assault or a related crime it is in your best interest to speak with a skilled Texas criminal defense attorney as soon as you can to discuss your case.

Facts Surrounding the Defendant’s Arrest

Allegedly, the defendant, who gained entry into the country illegally, was serving a sentence of five months in jail for multiple charges. During his sentence, he reportedly became angry after he requested a toothbrush and kicked a correctional officer in the genitals. He was charged with assault on a peace officer, to which he plead guilty. He was sentenced to three years in prison and then was deported. He re-entered the country after which he was charged with and convicted of unlawful re-entry.

Reportedly, an enhanced sentence was recommended, in part due to his prior assault conviction, which the court classified as a crime of violence. The defendant objected to the classification of an assault on a peace officer as a crime of violence. Specifically, the defendant argued that under Texas law, assault can be committed recklessly and does not require force as an element. His objection was denied, and he was sentenced to 38 months in prison, after which he appealed.

Continue reading →

Read the full article HERE.

HOUSTON (CN) – Unsealing a 43-count indictment, federal agents said they arrested 43 people Wednesday morning and seized millions of dollars from a Houston home, breaking up a cocaine-and-heroin trafficking operation involving an associate of the Gulf Cartel.

Houston DEA Special Agent in Charge Will Glaspy said the main target of the dragnet, dubbed Operation Wrecking Ball, is Mexican national Carlos Alberto Guajardo. Though Guajardo is the first of 56 people named in the indictment, he is still at large.

In any family law dispute, it is in the best interest of the parties involved if they can  come to an amicable agreement as to how issues should be resolved. Settlement agreements in family law cases are also viewed favorably by the courts. Under Texas law, if the parties in a divorce action enter into a mediated settlement agreement (MSA), the agreement is like any other contract in that the terms of the agreement are binding upon the parties. Similarly, the court must respect the terms of an MSA in issuing a divorce decree.

If the courts enter a decree that is contrary to the terms of an MSA, it can result in a reversal of the decree, as was illustrated in a recent case decided by a Texas appellate court. If you are considering pursuing a divorce, it is in your best interest to meet with a seasoned Texas family law attorney to discuss your options for pursuing your desired result.

Terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement

Reportedly, the parties were married for six months when the husband filed a petition for divorce. The petition alleged, in part, that the parties were the parents of two children of the marriage. The wife filed a general denial in response to the petition. The parties then entered into an MSA which stated, in part, that the husband would continue the adoption process of the first minor child, and that the wife consented to the adoption. The MSA also stated it was not subject to revocation. The husband subsequently filed a motion to enter a final divorce decree. The wife retained new counsel who then filed an amended answer, denying the husband’s parentage of the first minor child. The court held a hearing as to the child’s parentage, and ultimately entered a decree stating that the parties were the parents of both children. The wife appealed.

Continue reading →

Contact Information