Lawyer in Georgia

  Defendants in Dallas often have problems accepting their conditions of probation (community service). This can be difficult to address if the Dallas County District Court is not receptive to changing the conditions or if the problems are not set up for appeal at the time of the original conviction or at the time of a revocation of probation. A defendant cannot simply appeal probation conditions to the Dallas Court of Appeals during his probation when not done as part of an appeal from an order granting probation or a judgment of conviction. This applies even when the trial court has modified the conditions at some point subsequent to a judgment that was not appealed.  https://askcompetentlawyer.com/   No Texas appeals court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal simply from an order altering or modifying the conditions of community supervision. Challenges on appeal about probation conditions often involve arguments that the conditions are too vague. A legal obligation that

  INVENTORY PER DEPARTMENT POLICY Its been the better part of a year since the Dallas Court of Appeals announced its decision in an important vehicle-search case without citation in additional cases, which could mean that the decision has been heard. The defendant who won on appeal was arrested by the Grand Prairie Police Department, and the Dallas County District Attorney conducted the prosecution. An officer with the Grand Prairie Police Department pulled over the defendant after seeing him roll through a stop sign. The defendant had several valid warrants out for his arrest, so the officer placed him in custody and handcuffed him. Because there was no one else in the car, the officer decided to order that the car be impounded and began to inventory its contents. As a general rule, police officers can "inventory" the contents of a car.  https://askcompetentlawyer.com/civil-litigation/  Officers can inventory in order to protect the property of the driver, to protect themsel

  Because it affects so many resident aliens and other immigrants in the process of becoming citizens in Dallas and other metropolitan parts of Texas, I have been keeping my eye closely on ongoing developments in Texas applying the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in   Padilla v. Kentucky . In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that defense lawyers have a duty under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution to accurately and specifically advise a defendant about deportation and other immigration consequences that will result from a guilty plea. A defendant will plead guilty either under an "open" guilty plea to a judge or jury, where the punishment is left to the judge or jury, or in a situation involving a plea bargain, a more common scenario. The case law says that, whenever a defendant pleads guilty and waives his rights, the defendant has to be informed about immigration consequences in terms that are "succinct, clear and specific." In a scenario where

  On July 16, 2013, one the Houston Courts of Appeals (Houston is the only city in Texas that has two appellate courts) issued a ruling concerning delay in criminal cases that is caused by the State. It is common for the defendant to raise constitutional objections when there is a delay in prosecution that is not the defendant's fault. In 1995, the defendant was accused of sexually assaulting a child. The police officer who investigated the alleged crime was a detective who had only recently been promoted. The detective made several missteps in gathering evidence and in maintaining records of the interviews. As a result, he believed he did not have enough evidence to arrest the defendant for sexual assault of a child. His investigation remained "dormant" until 2003 when, responding to pressure from supervisors to clear out cases that were no longer being actively investigated, the detective deactivated the case. In 2010, the alleged victim (now an adult) wanted to know wh

  In Dallas County, a defendant is sometimes held in custody for an extended period before his case is resolved by virtue of a high bond amount. Of course, this situation can result in an favorable plea bargain or ill-preparedness for trial, not to mention the injustice if the defendant is never indicted. The problem was   illustrated in a case this week from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals . In Texas, the District Attorney is required under law, when the defendant is in custody, to bring a case to trial within 90 days at risk of a bond reduction or release on personal recognizance. There is an additional right that applies to the right to a dismissal after a defendant spends 180 days in jail without an indictment, but such dismissals are without prejudice, meaning that the State could still indict and start the process over. These rights are created under Texas law by the legislature, and they exist in addition to the constitutional speedy trial protection under the federal constituti

  Earlier this month, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals at Dallas recently decided an important sex offender case out of Kaufman County, Dallas County's immediate neighbor to the southeast. The Court addressed the longstanding issue of the rights of sex offenders who are on probation in Texas, and, in its opinion, recognized their basic constitutional right against self-incrimination, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The defendant sex offender had pled guilty to a charge of indecency with a child and was undergoing treatment in a program that required him to take several polygraph (lie detector) tests. For one year, he successfully passed the polygraph tests and attended over fifty group therapy sessions, as required by the program's guidelines. When the defendant took his third polygraph test, he was questioned about any previous sexual offenses he might have committed. The defendant properly replied that he would not answer any questions that might implicate him in a c