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?

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.

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!

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.

But ... but ... but, she pleaded "guilty," not "true," so that doesn't count. Right?

#sophistry

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"?

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.

I agree completely. It just usually helps with my judges if I have a case to back it up...

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.

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.

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.