Articles Posted in DWI Defense Lawyer

In a recent case before the Texas Court of Appeals, the State asked the court to reconsider an originally unfavorable verdict. After a defendant had been charged with driving while intoxicated, he quickly filed a motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to police officers after the incident. The lower court granted this motion, deciding the defendant’s statements to police officers could not be introduced at trial. On appeal, however, the State argued this decision was unconstitutional; ultimately, the higher court agreed and reversed the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a 911 caller one evening reported that he had seen a car crash into a utility pole and immediately drive away. The caller told the 911 operator that the car’s driver, who turned out to be the defendant in this case, had emerged from his car to survey the damage, and he appeared to be bleeding from his ear. The caller followed the defendant to his house to check on him, giving the 911 operator the defendant’s address.

Soon, police officers arrived at the defendant’s home and knocked on the door. The defendant answered, and he was holding a cloth to his bleeding ear. The officer asked the defendant several questions, and the defendant was eventually asked to take field sobriety tests. Soon after, the defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated. At the station, the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration came through as .173, well over the legal limit of .08 in Texas.

Continue reading

In a recent DWI case coming out of a Texas court, the defendant unsuccessfully appealed her conviction of driving while intoxicated. Originally, the defendant had been found guilty after a police officer stopped her based on a traffic violation. On appeal, the defendant argued that the officer did not actually have reason to conduct the initial traffic stop, and thus the evidence of her intoxication should have been suppressed. The court, considering the circumstances of the stop, disagreed with the defendant and denied her appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one evening when she passed through a “no through traffic” sign at the edge of a construction zone. A police officer began following her through the construction zone and pulled her over once she had driven from one end of the zone to the other end.

As the officer spoke with the defendant, he smelled alcohol and observed behavior in the defendant that appeared to indicate she was intoxicated. The officer asked the defendant to complete several field sobriety tests, which served as further confirmation that the defendant was intoxicated. The defendant’s blood was drawn pursuant to a search warrant, and her blood alcohol content was .14.

Continue reading

In a recent opinion from a Texas court, the defendant successfully argued that his motion to suppress should have been granted. Originally, the defendant was pulled over in a traffic stop, and the officer pulling him over arrested him for driving under the influence. When the defendant filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence proving he was intoxicated, the court at first denied this motion. Later, though, a higher court agreed with the defendant, finding that the evidence should have been suppressed in the first place.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer was patrolling the roads one evening when he stopped the defendant’s vehicle for failing to maintain a single line of traffic. In the officer’s testimony, he stated that the only reason he stopped the defendant’s car was for this one reason – there were no other factors that went into his decision to pull the defendant over.

During the traffic stop, the officer saw that the defendant appeared to be intoxicated. He arrested the defendant for driving while intoxicated, and the defendant soon after filed a motion to suppress the evidence of his intoxication. The defendant argued that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over in the first place, and since the officer should not have initiated the traffic stop, the subsequent evidence of intoxication was unfairly included in the State’s case. The court denied this motion to suppress, and later the defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated. Continue reading

In a recent opinion from a Texas court involving a DWI, the defendant’s request for incriminating evidence to be suppressed was denied. The defendant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated and appealed by arguing that the court improperly admitted his blood sample as evidence at trial. The court disagreed, ultimately denying the defendant’s appeal.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer in Texas stopped the defendant after observing his vehicle weaving from one lane to the other. The officer also saw that the defendant’s middle brake light was out and was concerned about the vehicle’s defective equipment. During his testimony, the officer explained that he originally looked for the defendant’s car because a bartender had called the police station saying she was concerned that the defendant might be heavily drinking and driving after having departed her establishment.

After stopping the defendant’s vehicle, the officer noticed the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and that the defendant was sleepy and swaying. While the defendant admitted to drinking alcohol, he refused to submit to a blood test. Based on the officer’s statements, however, a judge found that there was probable cause for a search warrant, and decided that the officer was legally allowed to take a sample of the defendant’s blood regardless of whether or not the defendant was willing to give it. The defendant’s blood sample was thus obtained and eight days later, was delivered to the Texas Department of Public Safety. An analysis of the sample showed that the defendant’s blood-alcohol level had been .170 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. He was convicted for driving while intoxicated.

Continue reading

Manejar un vehículo de motor bajo los efectos de bebidas embriagantes

¿Se enfrenta usted a una alegación de conducir un vehículo en estado de embriaguez? Existen varios detalles que usted debe saber sobre las penalidades y multas de un DWI.  ¡De ser arrestado por un DWI se enfrenta a la suspensión de su licencia de conducir, pero der ser encontrado culpable de manejar bajo efectos embriagantes, usted podría enfrentarse hasta 10 anos de prisión! 

¿Enfrentarse a tal acusación crea miedo, no? 

If my license is suspended for DWI, can I still drive to work? 

If you are facing a charge for DWI and your license is suspended, you may be eligible for what is known as an Occupational Driver’s License or ODL for short. This type of license allows a person to drive a non-commercial vehicle if their license is suspended, revoked, or denied because of DWI. 


I meet a lot of people during consults. A lot of people who are going through the trauma of being arrested for a felony DWI case. They are ashamed, scared, sad, angry at themselves, and now facing the possibility of prison time. Whether it’s their 3rd, 4th, or 5th DWI, or a DWI with child, or an intoxication assault, they are all scared and wondering what to do next. I tell these potential clients to seek help immediately for possible substance abuse. I recommend they complete the most intense rehabilitation program that they can, and seek the advice of their PCP as well. Why?

You’ve got time before we go to court, you need to use it

We usually have a lot of time between a felony DWI arrest and going to court. Felony DWI cases almost always go before the grand jury before they are filed. You can waive a grand jury, but it’s rare. In Kaufman County it’s not uncommon for 4-6 months to pass between an arrest for felony DWI and an indictment. The State has to wait on blood results from the lab, and that can take a few months. If there is an accident, then they may need to gather medical records and the accident reconstruction can take time. Which means my client, who is looking at prison time since it’s a felony, can use their time to start treatment and rehab now.

Texans love guns. We love booze. We live in a state with crappy public transportation. The result? A lot of people with concealed handgun licenses (CHL) get arrested for DWI in Texas. And a lot of people who want to get a CHL have a DWI conviction on their record.

The answer is no, you can’t get a CHL after a DWI conviction, at least for a while.

A misdemeanor DWI conviction will disqualify you from getting a CHL for a period of 5 years. Don’t take my word for it. Here is a DPS statement on the subject

If charged with an offense and want to hire an attorney but can’t afford one you may qualify for a court appointed attorney.

In some situations, you may not be happy with the court appointed attorney. But, it is unlikely that the court will appoint someone else. Unless you want to hire your own attorney, you are pretty much stuck with whoever the court appoints.

What if the attorney isn’t telling me what I want to hear?

Good news in the world of DWI’s has emerged from the 85th Texas Legislature. If certain criteria are met, now, it may be possible to file a petition for non-disclosure on DWI convictions. Texas House Bill 3016, Government Code 411.0731, defines the procedure and criteria. Section 411.0716(a) explains that this new act will apply to DWI’s committed before, on, or after September 1, 2017.

Does my DWI conviction qualify?

This new section will only apply to a person who has successfully completed a term of community supervision. This means that your community supervision was not revoked, you successfully served any jail time given and you paid all court costs, fines, and any other restitution imposed as part of the conviction.

Contact Information