TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Criminal    Motion to Revoke Probation Stipulation Subsequent Prosecution
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Motion to Revoke Probation Stipulation Subsequent Prosecution Login/Join 
Member
posted
I have a Defendant who pleaded true to the allegation of Driving While Intoxicated in a Felony Motion to Revoke Probation (MRP).

Is it permissible to use the felony MRP stipulation in a subsequent prosecution for DWI?
 
Posts: 12 | Registered: May 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Absolutely! I assume the plea of true to the allegation was made on the record, and most likely under oath. Defense attorney should probably have addressed the issue of the pending DWI at the time of the plea of true. If defendant now wants a trial on the DWI, the plea of true can certainly be used.
 
Posts: 324 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: November 16, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Larry L:
Absolutely! I assume the plea of true to the allegation was made on the record, and most likely under oath. Defense attorney should probably have addressed the issue of the pending DWI at the time of the plea of true. If defendant now wants a trial on the DWI, the plea of true can certainly be used.


Thank you for the prompt reply!
 
Posts: 12 | Registered: May 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
We have the opposite situation. Defendant in an MTR wants to plead "not true" in a contested hearing.

Problem is, she's already pled guilty and been convicted of the two offenses we alleged in our MTR. We have certified copies of her convictions.

Oops.
 
Posts: 95 | Location: Granbury, Texas | Registered: August 24, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
But ... but ... but, she pleaded "guilty," not "true," so that doesn't count. Right?

#sophistry
 
Posts: 1233 | Location: Amarillo, Texas, USA | Registered: March 15, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Are there any cases that say this is admissible? I've been looking but having trouble finding something right on point. Also - ideas for if defense objects because underlying probation would be "extraneous"?
 
Posts: 4 | Registered: December 28, 2016Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Why would it NOT be admissible? It is a statement of the defendant that goes directly to the issue of guilt. There is not a relevance objection, and it (prior judgment and supporting documents) is a public record.
 
Posts: 324 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: November 16, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I agree completely. It just usually helps with my judges if I have a case to back it up...
 
Posts: 4 | Registered: December 28, 2016Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Check for cases involving "judicial admissions." See also art. 38.22, sec. 5. I am not understanding the "extraneous" argument. Aren't you referring to the same offense you are trying to prove for a second time? Nothing extraneous about that.

Unfortunately, some specious arguments about statutory construction have not previously been presented to appellate courts, so a trial judge is called upon to read and apply just the language of the statute or rule. Most trial judges understand/accept this.
 
Posts: 2341 | Registered: February 07, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Sorry, by extraneous I mean the fact that Defendant was on probation for another offense, committed my offense, a motion to revoke was filed in the initial case and alleged my offense, and then defendant plead true to the allegations and was revoked from probation.

If defense argues that the fact that he was on probation for another offense is somehow inadmissible because its an extraneous offense.
 
Posts: 4 | Registered: December 28, 2016Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
You would not be trying to prove he was on probation for the other offense or his character, only his plea to the allegation in the MTR. You could likely excise any portions referring to the fact that his conduct violated a condition of probation. See e.g., Hoppes, 725 S.W.2d at 536.
 
Posts: 2341 | Registered: February 07, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Criminal    Motion to Revoke Probation Stipulation Subsequent Prosecution

© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.