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

alcohol by calling a sysfem administrator from an interlock company to interpret readings gathered
from interlock device installed on suspecf
's car. The wifness was able to distinguish fhose readings
caused by other subsfances from those caused by alcoholic beverages. The proof was held to be
sufficient even though the State was unable to present evidence thatthe defendant wasthe person
who actually blew into the device.
XXXII. JUDGE MAY CHANGE JURY SENTENCE OF JAIL TIME TO PROBATION
lvev v. State ,277 S.W.3d 43 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009).
Ihrs was a DWI trial where the defendant went to the jury for punishment and deliberately failed to
file a sworn motion with the jury declaring that he had never before been convicted of a felony
offense in this or any other sfafe, thus rendering himself ineligible for a jury recommendation. The
lury assessed his punishment at $2000 fine and thirty-five days in jail. After conferring informally
with the jury off the record, the judge announced she would suspend the imposition of the
appellant's sentence, place the defendant on community superuision for a period of two years, and
suspend all but $500 of the fine. The trial judge also imposed a thirty day jail term and a
requirement that the appellant complete 60 hours of community seruice as conditions of the
community superuision lhe r'ssue on appeal was whether a trial court can suspend a1u4y-assessed
punishment and order community superuision when the jury itself could not have recommended
community supervision. The Court of Criminal Appeals held it was not error for the trial court in this
case fo place the appellant on community supervision even though the jury assessed his
punishment and did not recommend it. lt was within the discretion of the trial court under Article
42.12, Secfion 3, to do sq so long as the appellant met the criteria for community superuision
spelled out there.
163