Worry no longer, John. The 2005 legislature amended CCP Art. 102.012; the decision to grant pre-trial intervention to a particular defendant must be approved by the court. Thus, a judge and a prosecutor are involved in making this decision. We follow this statute in Colorado County; the probation department supervises the defendants who are participating in the program.

(BTW, that is how we have been doing it. We get court approval to send the Def. to be interviewed by probation to see if he/she will be accepted into the program.)

I have a sort of crossover question b/t this post and the one about Expunctions.
Our PTD Agreement has a paragraph which states that the Def. agrees not to seek to have the case expunged from the records of the DA's office nor from Probation. Doesn't say any other agency, but just these two.
I understand the reason for this is so that a def. who completes PTD and then has it expunged can't come back in 6 mos or so with new charges and claim that he/she qualifies. The problem is that the whole reason and carrot w/PTD w/young offenders is for that very reason.

Is there a way around this that I'm missing?
I know that in all reality, if we're only dealing w/young 'uns, we should be able to recognize them if they come back so soon as to still qualify, but in the event of large turnover or something, how do you keep up with it? If you do?

I think a no-expunction condition sounds good. One way to perhaps soften the blow would be to allow expunctions after x number of years after completion of the PTD. Also, the application form probably should contain a statement by the applicant that they have never previously been a part of a PTD program. Last but not least, JMH, I'd sure appreciate receiving a copy of your PTD forms. You may email to distattorney@co.liberty.tx.us or fax to 936-336-4644. Thanks.

our PTI's are put on the record and entered into before a judge in open court. defendant's can't get on the program unless they sign a stipulation of evidence, the consequences of which are explained not only by their attorneys(which they must have to be eligible) but also by the judge.

the defendant's are supervised by our probation department. they must do CSR, pay probation fees, write a letter to the Editor to a local paper, keep a special sticker on their vehicle, and abide by other standard conditions of probation.

PTI is only offered in cases where the defendants submits to a breath or blood test and scores <~.11, though sometimes we can make exceptions in relatively benign no blow cases. there also can't be an accident involved or any previous convictions or PTI's, and they must have $100,000 in liability insurance coverage.

i love this program and think it provides a means for justice in a climate where DWI law is never tough enough to satisfy mad mothers or zealous troopers.

if our goal as prosecutors is to keep drunk drivers off the road, seems to me that PTI's of the type our office offers in these more difficult cases do a far better job of accomplishing this than Deadly Conduct/Obstruction of a Roadway plea offers.

[This message was edited by Drew Gibbs on 06-21-06 at .]

Mike, I know down this way we have used Pre-Trial Diversion a half dozen times in over a decade. In each of those circumstances, there have been some extremely extenuating circumstances, as you well-know. For felonies, I am hesitant to establish a policy allowing it. I have to side with John on that one. (Sigh). Sounds remarkably like Def. Adj., particularly in light of the statute that allows for non-disclosure (aka Expunction Lite). And if defense attorneys think there is something below deferred, you can bet your bottom dollar they will come to expect it as a right.

I agree with it in priciple for some misdemeanors (not DWI), but felonies are the big leagues. The vast majority of folks who break those laws aren't up for "youthful offender" status, no matter what I see on Louisiana judgments.

We should have lunch sometime and talk about it when you are out of trial. ;-)

TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE
Sec. 76.011. PRETRIAL SERVICES. (a) The department may operate programs for the supervision and rehabilitation of persons in pretrial intervention programs. Programs may include testing for controlled substances. A person in a pretrial intervention program may be supervised for a period not to exceed two years.
(b) The department may use money deposited in the special fund of the county treasury for the department under Article 103.004(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, only for the same purposes for which state aid may be used under this chapter.

Does anyone use this for minor, weak (but good - i.e., he did it),first offense ACBI-FV cases?

The two college-age brothers fighting in the backyard over a football bet, one black eye, one bruised leg, best buddies afterwards but grandma called 911 and we have pics (and two non-prosecute affidavits).

One female ex-roommate slaps another as she's moving out without paying her fair share.

Husband shoves wife after she comes home drunk and tips him over in his recliner. Case is over a year old, still living together and no repeated violence.

Step-dad tries to keep beligerant teenage daughter from running out of the house with mom's carkeys after an argument, grabs her arm and - V's stmt: accidentally scratched her face when he grabbed for her.

What do you do with all these - primarily if you inherit them from a prior regime - but also when they come to you as intake? Rejection doesn't sound exactly right when you have a statement and officer observes 'minor redness' or the above-mentioned small scratch. They aren't pleading because this is Class B, deferred doesn't really go away, and so off to trial we go ???

PT Diversion with an anger management course and community service sounds great to me. If it comes up again, or they violate terms, no PT, no deferred. Input, please?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Waco:

PT Diversion with an anger management course and community service sounds great to me. If it comes up again, or they violate terms, no PT, no deferred. Input, please?

---

... no felony, either, if they do it again. I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just sayin' it, is all.

What about reducing to a Class C misdemeanor and have them pay a fine?