Criminal Law - Practice area
Criminal Law

DWI, Drugs, Assault, Probation Revocation, Sexual Offenses, Theft, Juvenile Defense. Felony and Misdemeanor Offenses in State and Federal Court

DUI - Practice area
DWI

Driving While Intoxicated, DWI and Your Drivers License Forney, Texas DWI Defense Lawyer.

Juvenile Law - Practice area
Juvenile Law

Sexual Offenses, Drug Offenses, Assault and Violent Crimes, Theft, Truancy/School Related Criminal Charges.

Facing criminal charges can be overwhelming, especially when the aftermath involves not just legal consequences but also financial burdens. Texas criminal courts are allowed to issue restitution orders to victims of criminal cases, and the payments must be made as part of a defendant’s criminal case. Criminal restitution can exist in addition to civil liability for actions related to a criminal offense. In a recent Texas case, a defendant found himself ordered to pay restitution for damages resulting from a car accident, raising questions about the fairness of such rulings. This blog post delves into the intricacies of restitution in Texas criminal cases and highlights the need for a vigilant defense against potentially unjust financial burdens.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published judicial opinion, the case involved a collision where the defendant damaged a utility pole and an antique truck. While convicted of failure to perform a duty to provide information after the accident, the defendant was ordered to pay restitution for damages caused by the accident. The key question at hand is whether restitution can be ordered for an offense that did not directly cause the damage. The lower court entered a restitution ruling against the defendant, leading him to appeal.

The appellate court saw things differently than the trial court, and agreed with the defendant’s arguments that the restitution order was not appropriate. The defendant was convicted of failure to comply with duties after an accident, not for causing the damage to the utility pole and truck. The court noted that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the imposition of restitution. It emphasizes the statutory references requiring a direct connection between the offense and the damage caused. The analysis underscores that the criminal offense must be the cause of the damage for restitution to be justified.

Texas criminal law has developed in a way that seek clarity and justice in protecting the rights of victims of sexual assault. Those accused of sexual assault may also face a stigma because of the type of allegations, and sexual assault cases often come down to he-said-she-said credibility issues that make it essential for jurors to both understand the law of consent and accurately evaluate the credibility of witnesses. A recent judicial opinion from Texas demonstrates the challenges faced by both the prosecution and defense in navigating the legal intricacies surrounding witness testimony and the interpretation of consent.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the recent case in question involved an individual who was convicted of attempted sexual assault, a third-degree felony. However, the trial court’s jury instructions became a focal point of contention on appeal, as it allowed the jury to consider a broader range of actions than originally alleged in the indictment. The charge included a lesser-included offense for attempted sexual assault with an application paragraph that expanded the means of penetration to “by any means,” contrary to the indictment’s specific mention of using the sexual organ.

Upon appeal, the court of appeals found that an error was made in the charge and that the charge error was not harmless and led to egregious harm, resulting in a reversal of the conviction. The dissenting opinion argued that the error was harmless, emphasizing the unlikely scenario in which the jury would engage in convoluted mental gymnastics to reach a verdict.

In a November 2023 case before an appeals court in Texas, the defendant asked for a review of the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress evidence. Reviewing the defendant’s appeal, the higher court ultimately disagreed with his argument and affirmed the original verdict. The court’s opinion highlights the difficulty of suppressing incriminating evidence when a defendant commits multiple offenses in a row, serving as a reminder for Texans of just how difficult it can be to successfully suppress evidence in criminal cases.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, officers on patrol one evening used an automated license plate reader to discover that a nearby vehicle’s owner was wanted on multiple outstanding arrest warrants. Additionally, the officers noticed that the vehicle did not match the one for which the vehicle’s tags had been issued.

The officers put on their lights and attempted to conduct a traffic stop. The defendant stopped at first, but then he proceeded to flee the scene. What ensued was a high-speed chase that lasted approximately one hour. Eventually, officers used spike strips to stop the defendant in his car. The officers then arrested the defendant for avoiding arrest.

Continue reading

In a November 2023 case before an appeals court in Texas, the defendant asked for a review of the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress evidence. Reviewing the defendant’s appeal, the higher court ultimately disagreed with his argument and affirmed the original verdict. The court’s opinion highlights the difficulty of suppressing incriminating evidence when a defendant commits multiple offenses in a row, serving as a reminder for Texans of just how difficult it can be to successfully suppress evidence in criminal cases.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, officers on patrol one evening used an automated license plate reader to discover that a nearby vehicle’s owner was wanted on multiple outstanding arrest warrants. Additionally, the officers noticed that the vehicle did not match the one for which the vehicle’s tags had been issued.

The officers put on their lights and attempted to conduct a traffic stop. The defendant stopped at first, but then he proceeded to flee the scene. What ensued was a high-speed chase that lasted approximately one hour. Eventually, officers used spike strips to stop the defendant in his car. The officers then arrested the defendant for avoiding arrest.

Continue reading

For some criminal prosecutions, the government will go to great lengths to influence a jury to convict a defendant. Prosecutors will often retain and call expert witnesses to testify in support of a guilty verdict. Expert testimony is not always permitted, though when experts are allowed to testify on the state’s behalf, their testimony can significantly harm a defendant’s defense. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently released a decision that sheds light on their qualifications and the admissibility of their testimony.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant was charged with a Texas domestic violence offense. At trial, the prosecution sought to prove the elements of an aggravated offense, and the defendant was sentenced to five years in prison. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the state inappropriately used an expert witness who unfairly influenced the jury to convict him of the aggravated offense.

On appeal, the Court found that Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, plays a pivotal role in determining whether an expert witness’s testimony will be considered in court. Under this rule, three conditions must be met before expert testimony becomes admissible: qualification, reliability, and relevance.

In a recent criminal case before a district court in Texas, the defendant asked the court to find that the trial judge had been biased against him when deciding to sentence him to 50 years in prison. According to the defendant, the judge decided on 50 years arbitrarily, and the higher court should reverse that decision. Looking at the record, however, the district court disagreed with the defendant and ended up affirming the lower court’s sentence. This case serves as an example of how difficult it can be to establish bias-related claims on appeal, which is why it is essential for criminal defense attorneys to create detailed records in the event bias becomes a concern down the road.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with assault after he physically abused a person that he was dating. He struck her with his hand, hit her with an object, pulled her hair, and pushed her to the ground. According to the State, the defendant used both a car and a firearm during the assault, which made the offense more serious.

The defendant had been previously convicted of assault, specifically assault against a family member. The case went to trial, and a jury found the defendant guilty. After trial, the court sentenced the defendant to 50 years in prison. The defendant promptly appealed the judge’s decision.

The Court’s Decision and Legal Analysis

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court judge was biased against him. During the sentencing phase of the case, the judge spoke at length about the defendant’s prior convictions. After discussing the defendant’s criminal history at length, the judge decided he would accept the State’s suggestion and sentence the defendant to 50 years in prison.

Continue reading

In a recent case before a Texas court, the defendant appealed a jury’s unanimous decision that he was the shooter responsible for a 2020 drive-by shooting. According to the defendant, the evidence was legally insufficient to result in his guilty conviction. On appeal, the higher court considered the defendant’s argument but ultimately disagreed, affirming the original conviction and sentence. The case serves as a good example of one of the most common–but challenging–defenses in all of criminal law: insufficiency of the evidence.

Facts of the Case

The defendant’s case revolved around an August 2020 drive-by shooting that took place in Grand Prairie, Texas. A seventeen-year-old boy was killed while at a convenience store, and investigators discovered that the shots came from a driver-side window of a white SUV speeding by. The police department notified all local agencies to be on the lookout for the car, and an officer eventually stopped the SUV a few hours later.

The officer searched the SUV and found a nine-millimeter bullet, which matched the bullet casings found at the crime scene. After some additional investigation, the State charged the defendant (who was also the car’s driver) as the shooter. His case went to trial, and he was found guilty as charged. The defendant appealed.

Continue reading

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a criminal offense that one should never take lightly. Collin County is known for its zero-tolerance approach to DUI, which means that even a single drink can lead to an arrest. If you or a loved one has been charged with DUI in Collin County, it is fundamental to know the laws, penalties, and consequences. Additionally, building a strong DUI defense strategy and working with an experienced Collin County DUI attorney can significantly increase your chances of securing a favorable outcome.

Understanding Collin County DUI Laws

Before we delve deeper into how to build a strong DUI defense strategy, it is essential to understand the DUI laws in Collin County.

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Limits

In Collin County, the legal limit for BAC is 0.08%. However, drivers under the age of 21, commercial drivers, and individuals on probation for a previous DUI charge cannot have any alcohol in their system while operating a vehicle. It is important to note that BAC can be affected by a variety of factors, including the individual’s weight, gender, and the rate of alcohol consumption. For example, a person who weighs less may reach the legal limit faster than someone who weighs more. Furthermore, alcohol can impair a driver’s ability to operate a vehicle safely, even if their BAC is below the legal limit. This is why law enforcement officers may still arrest individuals for DUI if they exhibit signs of impairment, such as erratic driving or slurred speech.

Implied Consent Law

Collin County has an implied consent law that mandates drivers to take a chemical test if they are arrested under the suspicion of DUI. This means that if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the driver must submit to a blood, breath, or urine test. Refusing to take the test can lead to an automatic driver’s license suspension for up to 180 days. It is important to note that even if a driver refuses the test, they can still be charged with DUI based on other evidence, such as field sobriety tests or witness testimony.

Continue reading

Motions to suppress in Texas criminal cases play a critical role to put it mildly. Understanding their significance and knowing how to utilize them effectively is crucial for anyone charged with a serious crime. In this post, we will explore the definition and importance of motions to suppress, the legal grounds for filing such motions in Texas, the process of filing them, the role of defense attorneys in this process, and the potential consequences of successful and unsuccessful motions to suppress.

Understanding Motions to Suppress

Before delving into the intricacies of motions to suppress, it is essential to grasp their fundamental definition. In criminal cases, motions to suppress can be filed when there is reason to believe that certain evidence presented against the defendant was obtained illegally or in violation of their constitutional rights. The primary purpose of these motions is to exclude such evidence from being used against the defendant in court.

The significance of motions to suppress cannot be overstated. They can be the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. When successful, these motions effectively render the unlawfully obtained evidence inadmissible, weakening the prosecution’s case and providing the defendant with a much better chance at trial. In many cases, the prosecution will be forced to withdraw some or all of the charges if a motion to suppress is granted.

What Is a Motion to Suppress?

Motions to suppress are legal requests made by the defense to exclude specific evidence from being used against the defendant in a criminal trial. These motions argue that the evidence in question was obtained illegally or in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.

Continue reading

As Forney criminal defense attorneys, the lawyers at Guest & Gray play a pivotal role in investigating, preparing and litigating motions to suppress. Motions to suppress are responsible for protecting our clients’ rights and ensuring a fair trial. Thus, our assistance can make a significant difference in the outcome of the motion and your overall case.

Selecting the Right Defense Attorney for Your Case

Choosing the right defense attorney is paramount in motions to suppress. It is essential to select an attorney with a proven track record in handling similar cases and a strong understanding of the intricacies involved. A capable defense attorney will thoroughly evaluate the circumstances surrounding the alleged constitutional violations and provide the needed guidance throughout the entire process. The experienced defense attorneys at Guest and Gray possess an in-depth understanding of criminal law and the constitutional protections afforded to individuals. We can identify potential grounds for filing a motion to suppress, gather evidence to support our clients’ claims, and craft persuasive arguments to present in court. Our expertise plays a crucial role in shaping the outcome of your case.

The Consequences of Successful and Unsuccessful Motions to Suppress

The consequences of both successful and unsuccessful motions to suppress can significantly impact the outcome of a criminal case. Understanding these implications is vital for defendants and their legal teams.

Continue reading

Contact Information