New deal faster than DWIs

Web Posted: 04/01/2008 02:29 AM CDT

Karisa King and Elizabeth Allen
Express-News
Hoping to ease clogged court dockets and put more drunken drivers under the state's watch, Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed today will begin making a new pitch to people facing a first-time DWI charge.

The deal would allow drivers to avoid a formal DWI conviction � and some of the hefty financial penalties that come with it � in exchange for a quick guilty plea to a different charge and an agreement to abide by a raft of conditions that are far more rigid than the rules of probation typical for such cases.


Details.

I did not see a separate offense for "Obstruction of Highway - Intoxication" (and I looked, when I read in the article that that's what they were going to charge). Therefore, how would it get reported that way on the CR-43 for criminal history reporting purposes? I would be concerned that it could never be flagged that way. I guess we just have to pay attention to the CH when it's a Bexar County prior to see whether the charge was changed by the prosecutor and pled within 30 days of the arrest.

It will be interesting to see whether it works, though.

Do you believe it will simply move the backlog to DWI 2nd (which will appear as DWI 1st)? Or, will the majority of the drunk drivers not repeat because of the early placement in treatment?

Back in the late 1970's and early 1980's, prosecutors pleaded DWI cases to deferred adjudication to accomplish many of the same goals. The legislative reaction was for deferred to be taken away.

JB-
I guess the answer to your question depends on whether MOST people who get arrested for one DWI will do it again. I have not studied this, so I can't speak as to the statistics on how many first timers end up becoming recidivists. If the majority do, then I could see how it just shifts the case load to the next time. If the majority are just regular people who made a mistake and are scared off by the arrest in the first place, then maybe not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gretchen:
I did not see a separate offense for "Obstruction of Highway - Intoxication" (and I looked, when I read in the article that that's what they were going to charge). Therefore, how would it get reported that way on the CR-43 for criminal history reporting purposes? I would be concerned that it could never be flagged that way. I guess we just have to pay attention to the CH when it's a Bexar County prior to see whether the charge was changed by the prosecutor and pled within 30 days of the arrest.

---

Has anyone ever prosecuted an obstruction case that was NOT a DWI-gone-south? Anytime I saw such an entry on a CCH, I just automatically assumed it was one and told the defense attorney to prove otherwise. I don't think I was ever proven wrong.

Shannon--
Point granted. I think I have only seen one in almost six years that was a legitimate Obstruction to begin with. I'll shut up now, except for the occasional chuckle at my own blondeness on that.

I know this has already been said and discussed.

BUT . . .

simply, again . . .

forcing facts of a DWI into elements of other offenses to get pleas only proves why we need the ability to do "deferred" on a DWI-1st and be able to use that to enhance subsequent DWI's.

My fear of ever pleading a case to something that is not a true lesser-included is creating a "legal fiction" by trying too hard to fit facts into elements.

I realize that legally it is not a lesser included offense, but how does Bexar County argue that obstruction of a highway is not a less included of DWI when the county has a policy of treating it like it is?

DA launches bilateral attack on drunken-driving suspects

Web Posted: 04/02/2008 12:43 AM CDT

Elizabeth Allen
Express-News

District Attorney Susan Reed on Tuesday announced a "two-pronged attack" on drunken driving � an alternative sentencing deal for some first-time driving while intoxicated defendants, and mandatory blood tests over Memorial Day weekend for those who refuse breath tests.


For details on why this is not a "plea-down", click here.

"Please do not refer to this as a plea-down," she said at Tuesday's news conference

Oh, that clears it up! I still think defense counsel will be asking for lesser-included instructions on DWI's and Intox-Manslaughter and the prosecutor will need to argue against office policy.
Seems to me a Pre-trial Diversion Program would accomplish the same goal, just not generate any fine revenue for the County. That way if they violated the conditions, the State could still prosecute the DWI. Yes, if they fulfill the Diversion conditions, it could be expunged, but, the driving record would (should) still reflect the ALR refusal or failure.
Just my 2-cents.

[This message was edited by John Greenwood on 04-02-08 at .]

No matter how you slice it, this still seems to be a run-around the legislative intent of not making deferred adjudication available for DWI. Perhaps the justification is stronger with a diversion framework, but the line is still a fine one.

And let's all agree to support that concept.

I think some are losing sight of the forest because of the trees. The given reason for enacting this policy is the bloated, overloaded court dockets that have been caused by excessive DWI litigation -- a problem that a could be remedied by the Legislature, if they ever decided to care about the issue. Maybe this will help get their attention.

Shannon, that really is the point of all of this. The Legislature has built a very clumsy DWI beast for prosecutors. They have defined the offense in a manner that has virtually required expert testimony and then given the defendant the power to hide the facts that would support such testimony.

Getting "tough" on DWI's, by holding the line on convictions and punishments, has increased the number of cases that go to trial. And, as we all know, there are never enough courts to try all of these cases.

Furthermore, through add-ons, the Leg has made it very difficult for a defense attorney to recommend to his client to take an offer on a DWI. Interlock devices, surcharges, DL suspensions, etc., again raise the likelihood of a defendant demanding a trial.

So, the ultimate message to the Leg should be to fix this stuff if they want actual DWI convictions. And, currently, the most obvious solution is extension of mandatory breath/blood laws. That change at least would increase the likelihood of conviction.

I know the bulk of the DWI offenders don't get DWI numbers 2, 3, or 4. However, the end result of this is that, if given a shot in this program, a Bexar County DWI offender will need to get arrested for 4 DWI's before he'll be looking at prison time on a felony, not 3, since the obstructing charge can't be used to enhance a DWI charge. In the end, that's the real cost of this docket management tool. Is that a worthwhile tradeoff from a larger public policy standpoint? Only time will tell.

DWI suspects have way to thwart prosecutors


Karisa King
Express-New

On the night police charged District Judge Raymond Angelini with drunken driving because his red Mercedes-Benz had been swerving in the road, the officer noted in his arrest report that the judge was polite and cooperative, except for one thing - he refused to submit to a breath test.
After sitting on the bench for 13 years, Angelini, who has presided over more than 900 felony DWI cases, knew the stakes. By saying no to the test, he denied police the one possible piece of scientific evidence that either could sink or nail the case against him.

In Texas, it was no isolated act of defiance by a courthouse insider.


Details.

For a refresher on this forum's feelings on the subject, go back to this thread.

DWI program generating mixed results

Web Posted: 05/16/2008 11:08 PM CDT

By Elizabeth Allen
Express-News
County Court-at-Law Judge Tim Johnson read the names of the list of 51 people scheduled to appear for their various misdemeanor charges - criminal trespass, marijuana possession, bad checks, evading arrest - and 13 drunken driving charges.

Then he told DWI defendants they might have another option.

"The district attorney started a new program at the end of last month that you need to know about," Johnson said.


Details.

are some of my least favorite words....and because we are so close, I hear it often.

I initially thought the new plea deal would cause me to hear my least favorite words even more often, but from what I've heard, the defendants think the terms and conditions of the alternate plea are pretty tough and noone is asking for the same treatment here--we are generally told we are tougher than Bexar County on which cases go by the way-side.

Sounds like not a bump down other than the stigma that would-be pleaders fear from DWI convictions? They really must have high numbers of these cases sitting around and not enough time to try them all. I'm still not persuaded one way or the other yet....

quote:

---

Originally posted by suzannejost:
"that's not how they do it in Bexar County..."
are some of my least favorite words....and because we are so close, I hear it often.

---

We get the same treatment, except replace Dallas (or sometimes Tarrant) County for Bexar. I'm not sure why everyone thinks that's going to be so convincing. It's actually more likely to make me dig in my heels about doing it my way! (Stubborn, me? Nah!)

On the Bexar program, I've been told by quite a few defense attorneys that it's the DWI stigma that matters, because there are so many administrative fees and problems associated with it now. So I can understand why some would want that to go away. Time will tell. That's the nice thing about having so many counties and DAs out there -- we can all try different things and see what works out.