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

3. FELONY DWI & INTOXICATION ASSAULT
Rowe v. State, 2OO4 WL 1050693 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. ref'd) (Not designated for
publication).
Under the Blockburqer test, defendant's claim of double jeopardy fails. lntoxication assault differs
from felony DWI in that it requires a showing that defendanf caused serious bodily injury to another.
Felony DWI differs from intoxication assault in that it requires proof of two prior DWI convictions.
4. DWI & CHILD ENDANGERMENT
Baqbv v. State , 2OO7 WL 704931 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (not designated for
publication).
ln determining there was no double jeopardy violation in prosecuting this defendant with both DWI
and Endangering a Child, the Court found that the child endangerment charge permitted conviction
under multiple theories that were not present in the driving while intoxicated charge. After applying
the Blockburqer test, the Court held that each charging instrument requires proof of an additional
element that the other does not. Therefore, there has been no double jeopardy violation.
Ex Parte Walters. 2006 WL 1281076 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006) (not designated for
publication)(pet. ref'd. ).
Because the offense of driving while intoxicated requires proof of an additional element -"in a
public place" that the offense of endangering a child does not, it is not a /esser included offense of
endangering a child, and the two offenses are not the same for double jeopardy purposes.
State v. Guzman, 182 S.W.3d 389 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, no pet.).
Prosecution for child endangerment that uras based on allegation that defendant drove while
intoxicated with child under age 15 aspassenger was not barred by prohibition against double
jeopardy after defendant pled guilty to DWI. DWI did not require proof that defendant intentionally,
knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence placed child in imminent danger of death, injury
or physicalor mental impairment.
F. OCCUPATIONALDRIVER'SLICENSE/ALRSUSPENSIONS
State Ex Rel. Gilfeather, 937 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).
County criminal court, which had no civil jurisdiction, had no authority to grant an occupational
driver's license to a defendant when the defendant had not been convicted of the DWI case from
which fhe suspension arose and case was still pending in that court.
L46