Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

July 27, 2023

Understanding the Difference Between Insanity and Incompetence in Texas

In the world of criminal law, two legal terms frequently make headlines but are often misunderstood: insanity and incompetence. While these terms may seem interchangeable, they carry distinct meanings and implications within the legal system.

For individuals facing criminal charges in Rockwall, Texas, it is crucial to comprehend the difference between these concepts. In this blog post, we will delve into the contrasting notions of insanity and incompetence, shedding light on their definitions, legal implications, and how they affect criminal defense strategies.

The Insanity Defense: A State of Mind

Insanity, as a legal concept, revolves around an individual’s mental state at the time of committing a crime. To be considered legally insane, the defendant must have been unable to comprehend the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong due to a severe mental illness or defect. This defense suggests that the defendant lacked the mental capacity to form the requisite intent or engage in criminal behavior knowingly. However, it’s important to note that the insanity defense is rarely invoked and, when used, faces significant scrutiny and strict requirements in the courtroom.

July 24, 2023

Find the Best Collin County Drug Crime Lawyer for Your Case

by Robert Guest

When facing drug crime charges in Collin County, having the right legal representation can make all the difference in the outcome of your case. With so much at stake, finding the best lawyer for your unique situation is crucial. This article will provide you with a comprehensive guide to finding the right drug crime attorney in Collin County.

Understanding Drug Crime Charges in Collin County

Before delving into how to find the right attorney for your case, it is important to have a basic understanding of drug crime charges in Collin County. Drug crimes can encompass a wide range of offenses, including possession, distribution, trafficking, and manufacturing of illegal drugs. Texas has some of the toughest drug laws in the country, and the penalties for conviction can include hefty fines, mandatory drug treatment programs, and even jail time.

Drug crimes are taken very seriously in Collin County, and law enforcement officials are constantly on the lookout for individuals who may be involved in drug-related activities. If you are facing drug crime charges, it is important to understand the severity of the situation and take immediate action to protect your rights and freedom.

Types of Drug Crimes

The specific charges you may be facing will depend on the circumstances of your case and the type of drug involved. Some common drug crimes in Collin County include:

Possession of a controlled substance: This can include any illegal drug, such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine.

Possession with intent to distribute: If you are found to be in possession of a large quantity of drugs, or if you have other evidence that suggests that you intended to sell or distribute the drugs, you may be charged with this offense.

Cultivation or manufacturing of drugs: This offense refers to the growing or production of illegal drugs, such as marijuana or methamphetamine.

Trafficking or distribution of drugs: This offense involves the sale or transportation of illegal drugs.

July 10, 2023

Texas Appellate Disagrees with Defendant Over Alleged Trial Court Error in Aggravated Assault Case

by Robert Guest

In a recent case before the First District Court in Texas, the defendant asked that his guilty verdict be reversed because of an error in the notes that the trial court gave the jury. Originally, the defendant was charged with aggravated assault after he allegedly injured a fellow inmate in prison, and his case went to trial. After receiving a guilty verdict and a subsequent sentence, the defendant appealed to the higher court.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was incarcerated for another crime, and he was in the routine of playing cards with his bunkmate most evenings while they were both in prison. During one game in particular, the defendant and his bunkmate argued about who won their game of poker, and a fight ensued. While the defendant and the bunkmate had different stories as to what exactly happened next, the bunkmate ended up severe injuries, including a broken nose and the loss of sight in one eye.

According to a prison employee, the bunkmate’s injuries were the worst he had ever seen while working for the prison. The State charged the defendant with aggravated assault, and he pleaded not guilty. The case then proceeded to trial.

June 30, 2023

Texas Defendant Unsuccessfully Asks for Reversal of Sexual Abuse Conviction

by Robert Guest

In a recent case before an appeals court in Texas, the defendant took issue with his conviction of continuous sexual abuse of a minor. The defendant was originally charged after his stepdaughter came forward to her school counselor, alleging that he had abused her multiple times. A jury found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to 50 years in prison. On appeal, the defendant argued the State should have been prohibited from introducing evidence that he threatened to kill his stepdaughter’s family, principally due to its irrelevance in the case. Ultimately, the higher court denied the appeal and affirmed the defendant’s original conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant met the young girl involved in this case when he began dating her mother. Eventually, the defendant married the girl’s mother, and the group moved into a house together. When the girl was 12 years old, the alleged sexual abuse began, and eventually, the girl disclosed the abuse to her school guidance counselor.

The State investigated, gathered details, and learned that the defendant had sexually abused his stepdaughter at least seven times over the course of a couple of years. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty as charged. At his sentencing hearing, the defendant was sentenced to 50 years in prison. He promptly appealed.

June 13, 2023

Court of Criminal Appeals Sides with Defendant, Finding a Violation of His Speedy Trial Rights

by Robert Guest

In a recent case coming out of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the defendant claimed that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. He was originally convicted of murder and tampering with evidence, and he argued that too much time passed between the charge and the conviction. While the court originally found it was unable to review the defendant’s claim, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued an opinion telling the lower court it had to make a decision one way or the other, sending the case back down for review.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged and convicted, but he appealed quickly on the grounds that he was denied the right to a speedy trial. Under both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, an individual is guaranteed the right to have a “speedy” public trial. While the word “speedy” is up for interpretation, courts look to see whether an unreasonable amount of time passed between the charge and conviction when analyzing a speedy trial claim.
Here, the defendant said he waited too long for his trial to take place, and thus that the guilty conviction should be vacated. Originally, the appellate court disagreed and kept the verdict in place. The defendant, however, filed a petition asking for a review of the appeals court’s decision.

The Decision

The reviewing court looked at the appellate court’s decision to determine whether or not it was correct in denying the defendant’s claim. Apparently, said the reviewing court, the court of appeals had denied the claim because the lower court had failed to conduct a “speedy trial hearing.” The appellate thought it did not have enough evidence to decide the case since there was no hearing specifically on this issue in the lower court. Therefore, the court had denied the defendant’s request.

May 31, 2023

Drug Possession Conviction Affirmed Despite Finding of Illegal Search

by Robert Guest

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect Americans and Texans from unreasonable searches and seizures performed in the course of a criminal investigation. Generally, evidence that has been seized by law enforcement in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be admitted in a criminal prosecution. This exclusionary rule encourages law enforcement officers to follow the constitution or else risk losing the opportunity to obtain a conviction for criminal conduct. There are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, and it is possible for a defendant to be convicted upon evidence that was found after an illegal and unconstitutional search. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently reversed a lower appellate decision that had thrown out a man’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine based on an illegal search.

The defendant in the recently decided appeal was stopped by law enforcement for failing to have a valid registration for his vehicle. After the stop, the officer attempted to perform an investigative “pat-down” of the defendant, at which point the defendant resisted the officer. Based on the defendant’s resisting the search, he was placed under arrest, and methamphetamine was found at the arrest scene. The defendant was charged with drug possession. Before trial, the defendant attempted to suppress the drug evidence found at the scene of the arrest, arguing that the “pat-down” was not a constitutional search.

The trial court agreed that the search was not legal, however, they rejected the defendant’s motion nonetheless, determining that the defendant’s unlawful conduct of resisting the search was an independent crime that resulted in the drugs being seized.

May 10, 2023

Texas Appeals Court Rejects Defendant’s Miranda Claim

by Robert Guest

The United States Constitution protects Texans accused of crimes from being required to give any statement that could incriminate them. Under the Supreme Court precedent set by the case of Miranda v. Arizona, all criminal suspects or defendants must be advised that they have the right to remain silent and are not required to answer questions by law enforcement. If a suspect is questioned without being given a Miranda warning, incriminating statements made during questioning may not be used against the suspect in their prosecution. Although Miranda rights are enshrined in federal law, defendants still must make an objection to the admission of any evidence that was obtained in violation of Miranda. The Texas Court of Appeals recently addressed a defendant’s claim that he was illegitimately convicted of firearm and drug offenses because he was not given his Miranda rights prior to his making incriminating statements that were used in the trial against him.

The defendant in the recently decided case was stopped while driving a vehicle in Harris County. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant was stopped because a law enforcement officer ran his license plates, and the system showed that he had outstanding traffic warrants. After the stop, the defendant was advised to go to the courthouse with the arresting officer to pay the warrants and be released. As the defendant exited his car, the officer allegedly saw a small baggie that appeared to contain narcotics and questioned the defendant about the contents of the bag. Ultimately, the defendant admitted that the narcotics belonged to him, and also admitted that there was a firearm in the car. All of these statements were made by the defendant without him first being told his Miranda rights.

The defendant ultimately stood trial for possession of cocaine, as well as the illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Before trial, the defendant’s attorney moved the court to suppress the physical evidence obtained in the search based on a claim that the initial traffic stop was not justified. The defense motion was denied, and the defendant was convicted of the charges against him, in part because of the statements that he made claiming ownership of the illegal drugs and guns before his arrest.

April 24, 2023

Defendant in Sexual Assault Case Unsuccessfully Argues that Jury Shouldn’t Have Found Him Guilty

by Robert Guest

In a recent opinion issued by the Seventh District Court in Texas, the court denied the defendant’s appeal of his sexual assault conviction. Originally, the defendant was arrested, charged, and convicted based on an incident in which he sexually assaulted an acquaintance of his at a party while she was intoxicated. Appealing the decision, the defendant emphasized that he should not have been convicted because there was insufficient evidence to show he knew the acquaintance was intoxicated. Reviewing the record in the case, the higher court eventually denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was attending a party on New Year’s Eve with a group of friends. At one point during the party, the defendant and his girlfriend went to check on an acquaintance that was intoxicated and laying on an upstairs bed. The defendant’s girlfriend went to the bathroom, at which point the defendant forced himself on the acquaintance in the bed.

When the defendant’s girlfriend came out of the bathroom, the defendant immediately backed away. The pair then left the bedroom. Later, the acquaintance told another person at the party she thought she had been sexually assaulted. She was taken to the police station, and after some discussion with the investigators, the defendant was arrested and charged.

April 12, 2023

Defendant in Assault Case Loses Argument Before Fourth Court of Appeals

by Robert Guest

Last month, the Fourth Court of Appeals issued an opinion related to a defendant’s conviction for assault on a peace officer. Originally, the defendant was charged and found guilty after an incident in which officers showed up to his home to arrest him. The defendant ran away, the officers chased him, and an altercation ensued. On appeal, the defendant argued that the indictment against him actually authorized a conviction for a lesser crime when in reality he was convicted for a more serious crime than his indictment allowed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case and his wife got into a domestic dispute one evening. His wife called the police, and two officers came to the house to investigate. Upon entering, they noticed that the defendant was rocking back and forth while seated in the corner of the living room, apparently intoxicated.

There were two outstanding warrants for the defendant’s arrest, so the officers advised him that they were going to arrest him. Immediately, the defendant began yelling, then he started to kick and push the officers out of the way. He got up and ran to the back of the house, throwing a ladder at the officers when they began to catch up. As the altercation continued to escalate, the defendant kicked the officers in the stomach, hoping to ward them off.

Eventually, the officers were able to handcuff the defendant, and he was immediately arrested for the assault.

April 11, 2023

Defendant in Aggravated Sexual Assault Case Loses Appeal Before Texas Court of Appeals

by Robert Guest

In a recent case before a Texas court of appeals, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his guilty verdict for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Originally, the defendant was convicted of the first-degree felony and sentenced to forty-five years in prison. On appeal, the defendant argued that the court erroneously instructed the jury, making him more likely to receive a guilty verdict. The court denied the appeal, ultimately affirming the decision coming out of the lower court.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was at first indicted for three different offenses: continuous sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual assault, and indecency with a child.
The defendant’s case went to trial. Before the jury made its decision, the judge gave jury members written instructions, as is common in any criminal case. In the instructions, the judge indicated that the jury should use “common sense” when making a decision about whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty. After deliberating, the jury delivered a verdict of guilty of both aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child. Promptly, the defendant appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that the jury instructions unnecessarily prejudiced him before the jury made their decision. According to the defendant, the judge essentially asked the jury to speculate instead of urging them to look objectively at the facts of the case. By inviting this degree of speculation, the court gave an erroneous instruction and made the jury more likely to find the defendant guilty. Thus, said the defendant, the verdict should be reversed.