Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...

convicted two times of an offense relating to the "operating of a motor vehicle while
intoxicated," the offense is a felony of the third degree. 49.09(c) specifically defines the term
"offenserelating totheoperating of a motorvehicle" to include an offense underArticle 6701/-1
Revrsed Sfatutes, as that law existed before September 1 , 1994. 6701 I stated: "For purposes of fhis
article, a conviction for an offense that occurs on or after January 1, 1984, is a final conviction,
whether or not the sentence for the conviction is probated." So, by incorporating the prior DWI
statute, as that law existed before enactment of the new statute, the Legislature declared its intent
to continue fhe sfafus quo, which included permifting probated DWI convictions for enhancement
if the offense occurred after January 1, 1984.
T. MISDEMEANOR PRIORS ARE VALID WHEN DEFENDANT WAIVES JURY
WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY
Redfearn v. State, 26 S.W.3d729 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, no pet.).
Defendanttried to quash enhancement paragraphs because he had not been appointed an attorney
prior to waiving the right to a jury. Court points out that under 1.13(c) of Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure that right applies only to felony pleas.
See A/so Moore v. State.976 S. W.2d 696 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, no pet.).
U. DWI SENTENCE MUST INCLUDE JAIL TIME
State v. Maoee, 29 S.W.3d 639 (Tex.App.-Houston [1"tDist.] 2000, pet ref'd).
Judgment reversed where judge sentenced defendant charged with first offense DWI to pay a $250
fine with no confinement in jail. Statute clearly requires a minimum 72 hours confinement in jail.
V. ILLEGAL SENTENCE ENFORCEABLE IF DEFENDANT ASKED FOR IT OR
AGREED TO IT
Mapes v. State, 187 S.W.3d 655 (Tex.App.-Houston [141h Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd).
Srnce defendant had enjoyed the benefit of a /esser sentence under his prior conviction pursuant
to plea agreement, he was estopped from asserfing on appeal.that because one of his prior driving
while intoxicated (DWI) convictions was void for imposition of a sentence that uras /ess than the
minimum sentence required under the statutory range, the Trial Court was precluded from finding
defendant guilty of cunent felony DWI charges.
Ex Parte Shoe,' 137 S.W.3d 100 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth January 15, 2004), rehearing overruled
(Mar 18, 2004), petition for discretionary review granted (Nov 10,2004), petition for discretionary
review dismissed (Oct 10, 2OO7).
Though the defendant's plea bargain which sentenced him to jail but did nof assess any fine was
illegal, he could not later complain about a sentence that he requested, accepted the benefit from
when he entered in the plea agreement.
1,40