T - Voice For The Defense Online

Pl~a~~~~nplete and send this registration form by mdto KDU600 vest l3W hs6n 7% 78701-1700 or by tuC to (512)461-9107.Addressa15 slate, zipPhone0&nrent or A%W Member 2750 Non-MemberEl PeddPublle Defcnder Member0 RarIyRegistration ends August 16, after that date, pl~ase addMemIrwsb@ Beast$+a&&mrr &>& orjoin andgsf fke semimraf the mmberprice!New ember (SeeBe 8 \v)0 Renew your MembershipS ecial EvstlfC f uck Wagon Dher at YO Ra~tcb, Pi4dsy September 14thPcdetd Motions Disk doneAudio TapsMember $100.00Non-Member $250.00Member $ 50.00Nm-Member $200.00$108.00Hame nu Cu4C d NumberQp. Date01 am appl n fa a sciiolmhip by August 16tb. 'ib a ply, sand aletter indica(ing:pu nee~w\~he~~~~l'vereceii~axchdm9 be& and when as well t+s woetfers of recommen&atiou, one from s judge m one from a member of TCDJAO Please check here or call the oEce ifyou require specid assislance.We will he happy to iielp puin any way we an.* Open to Grlminat Defam J~IQKI~S OnlyMembei's NamePleme mil Randy at 512f478-2514or' che& out ow Web site - wwv.tcdla.com fori~ornzaffon!"Open to Grimfnaf Defense Lawyers Only

COLUMNS6 Presidents Message8 Capitol Corner11 Editors Comments1 2 Federal Corner1 4 From the Four Corners of Texas16 The Corner OfficeDEPARTMENTS1 3 New Members List1 5 I Schedule of EventsMotion of the Monthl836 1 Significant Decisions ReportFEATURE STORIES22 Judge-Made Sentence Enhancements-a Questionof Fact, of Law, or of the Constitution?By William Maynard, Assistant Federal Public Defender32 Intermediate Sanction Facility PlacementBy Gary J. Cohen

The purposesforwhich the corporation is0rganizedare:To protect and ensure by ruleof law those indi~dual rights guaranteed by the Texas and Federal Constitutions incriminal cases;to resistthe constantefforts which are now being madeto curtailsuchrigMs;to encourage cooperation betweenlanyersengagedinthefu&emnceof suchobjectives through educational programs and other assistance; and through suchcooperation, education and assistance to promote justice and the common good.STATEMENTF@icefir t h ? D OSN 0364-2232) ispublished monthly, except forJanuaryiFebrua~y and J~~ly/Augu~st, whichare bimonthly, by the Texas CriminalDefeuse Iasyes Association Inc., 600 West13th Street, Austin, Texas 78701. PlWed inthe USA Basic subscription mte: $40 peryear when receiwd as a benefit of TWLAmeinbetship, Non-member subsuiplions:$75 amuaUF Periodicals Postage Paid atAustb~, Tmu.POSTMASTER: Send addresschanges to I'oiecfor fbeDefeme, 600 \Vest13th Street, Austin, Tms 78701. I'oice forfhe De?wis pohlished to educate, trainand support ~ttorneys in the practice ofcrinlind defense lawCONTRlBmORS: Send all faturearticles to Greg Westfdl, lRsmeslfal &Plat, OneSumtnithw., S1i(e9l0,Poi1\~o~~~~lX76102,817l877-1700. Please se~~d dl other malerialsfor publicntion to John Cmoll, 111West Ollnos Drive, San Antonio, Texas78712. 2101829-7183 or to, I'oice for theRefem, 600 West 13th Stwet, h~~sUn, TX78701, 5121478-2514, Fay 512f469-9107,e-mail materids can be sent tomvn.tcdla.com.Statemne~~ts aud opinions pr~bllsl~ed in theYolce for fhs D@nse am those of thea11t11or and do not necessdy represent theposrtm of TCDW. No materid may bereprinted witl~out prior approval aud propercredit to the iuagazine. @2001 TexasC~indml Defense la~ye1-s Asociation.2001- 2002 OFFICERSPresident Betty Blackwell, AustinPresident-Elect Mark G. Daniel. Fort Worth1 st Vice President Cynthia ~uhr Orr, San Antonio2nd Vice President Daniel Hurlev. -- LubbockTreasurer Randy Wilson, AbileneSecretary Stuart Kinard, AustinEditor Voice for the Defense John Carroll, San AntonioEditor Significant Decisions Report Cynthia Hampton, AusImmediate Past President Bob Hinton, DallasDIRECTORSERIC M. ALBRITTON, LongviewG. PATRICK BLACK, TylerWES BALL, ArlingtonDANNY EASTERLING, HoustonLANCE EVANS, Fort WorthALBERT0 GARCIA, AustinMIKE R. GIBSON, El PasoDEXTER GILFORD, AustinDAVID GUINN, LubbockRONALD P. GUYER, San AntonioWILLIAM s. nnmrs, Fort WorthCYNTHIA HENLEY, HoustonRODERlQUE HOBSON, JR., LubbockCHRIS HOOVER. Plan0W.H. "BENNIE" HOUSE, JR., HoustonJEFF KEARNEY, DallasJ. CRAIG JEW, DallasMARTIN LENOIR, DallasASSOCIATE DIRECTORSHENRY BEMPORAD, San AntonioWI~IAM CARTER, MadisonvilleMIKE CHARLTON, HoustonBRIAN CHAVEZ, OdessaKNOX FITZPATRICK, DallasDlANNA HOERMANN, San AntonioROBERT LERMA, Brownsvillen.w. rnwoo~~ll LEVERETI, JR., MidlanJESSE MENDEZ, LubbockGEORGE MILNER, 111, DallasTYRONE MONCRIFFE, HoustonWALTER "SKIP" REAVES, WestRICHARD RODRIGUEZ, HarlingenWTHERINE SCAR~INO. HoustonGEORGE SCHARMEN, Sun AntonioSTANLEY SCHNEIDER, HoustonRICHARD SEGURA, JR. AustinRONALD SPRIGGS, AmarilloMARY STILLINGER, El PasoJ. GARY TRICHTER. HoustonMANDY WELCH, HoustonGREG WESTFALL, Fort WorthDON WILSON, AbilenePHIL WISCHKAEMPER, Lubbock-LARRY MOORE. Fort WorthANDY NooUERAS, McAllenVERSEL RUSH, Wichita FallsGWNT SCHEINER, HoustonJOE SPENCER, El PasoJOHN YOUNG. Sweetwater

COMMIlTEE CHAIRS AND CO-CHAIRSAMICUS CURIAERick Hagen (940) 566-1001CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATIONTim Evans (817) 3323822Gerry Morris (512) 479-8600INNOCENCE COMMllTEECynthia Hujar Orr (210) 2261463DEATH PENALTY COMMIWEEChak Cynthia Hujac Orr (210) 226-1463Director: Phil Wischkaetnper (806) 7633900HALL OF FAMEClifton "Scrappy" Holmes (903) 758-2200LAWYERS ASSISTANCEDan Hurley (806) 770 0700(940) 757-9878 fax(814) 332-2763 fax(512) 479-8600 kx(210) 226-8367 fax(210) 2268367 Fax(806) 763-9904 fax(903) 758-7864 fax(806) 763-8199faxLEGISLATIVEKeith Hampton (512) 746 8484 (512) 476-9309 faxSubcommittee: Indigent Representation liaison n./State Bar ofTexas:Catherine GreeneBurnett (713) 6461831 (713) 6461766 faxMEMBERSHIPBem~ieHouse (713) 688-3398 (713) 6800804faxLydia Clay-Jackson (409) 760-2889 (409) 756-0901 filxVerse1 ~ ush (940) 767-7567 ,740) 723-9972 faxSheldon Weisfield (956) 5462727 (956) 5447446hCharlie Butts (210) 226-1692 (210) 226-2237 faxSECOND CHAIR COMMIWEECarolyn Denero (512) 472-1353 (512) 472-1316 faxRURAL AND SWLL TOWNJohnR. Smith (935) 598-2744 (936) 598-6336 faxNOMINATINGMark Daniel (817) 332-3822 (817) 332-2763 faxPAROLE AND SENTENCINGGary Cohen (512) 476-6201 (512) 477-5778 faxBill Habern (930594-2123 (936) 5949100 hDavid O'Neil (936) 2941663 (936) 5949100 faxIMPORTANT TAX NOTICEWES/TAX NOTICE PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWINGBecause afTCOMs lcglslaove p rm $39 ~Isuslaning md regular mcmbcrship duesis nat dzucllble ns a busmas c\ppnse.Robert HintonDallas IZOW-2WI)Michael P. HeiskellFort Worth (1939-MW)Kent Alan SchdferHouston (1938-1399)E.G. "Gerry" MorrisAustin 11397-1398)Dmid L. BotsfordAusun (1396-1397)Bill WischkaemperLubbock11935-1996)Ronald L. GoransonDallas (1934-19351Dmid R. BimsHouston (1993-1934)Gerald H. GoldsteinSan Antonm (1992.1993)Richard AlanAndersonDallas(1991-1992)Tim EvansForth Worth 11990-1991)Judge J.A. "Jim"Bob0Odessa 11989-19901Edward A. MallettHouston (1988-1989)Charles D. BumSan Antonlo (1987-19881Knox Jones'McAllen (1986-1987)Louis Dugas, Jr.Orangel1985-13%)1VOICE CONTRIBUTORSIIFEATURE ARTICLES EDITOR:Greg Westfall\Vestfall and PlattOne Suuimit Ave., Suite 910Fort Worth, TX 76102(817) 877-1700PRODUCTION ASSISTANT:Swan Vela RiceTCDLA/Home Office (512) 478-2514DESIGN & PRODUCTION:Noel MacDonaldMCD Digital (512) 656-8299PRINTING:MPRRSS, INC. (512) 389-0140Clifton L. "Scrappy"Holmes -- --. .--Longview(1984-13851Thomas Gilbert Sharpe, Jr.Brownsville (1983-13841Clifford W. BlownLubhock(1982-19831Charles M. McDonaldWaco l1981-1982)Judge Robert D. JonesAustin (1980-19811Vincent Walker PeriniDallas (1979-1380)George F. LuqueHe'Houston 11978-13781Emmen Colvin*Falrfleld, VA (1977-19781Weldon HolcombTyler (1376-13771C. Dmid Evans*San Antonio (1975.1976)George E. OilkersonLubbock(1374-19751Phil Burleson*Dallas (1373-13741C. Anthony Friloux, Jr.'Houston (1972-19731Hon. Frank MaloneyAustin (1371-1972)ASSISTANT FEATURE ARTICLES EDITORSCynthia H. Orr (210) 226-1463huijarorr@aol.com2900 Tower Life Bldg.San Antonio, Texas 78205ISEPTEMBER 2001 WVJW.TA.COM VOICI FOR THE DEFENSE 5

SB7--The FairDefense ActCourtl~o~~sesacross Texas are ab~m with disc~~ssion about SB7- The Pair Defense Act. IIIorder to ~~ndcrstand the fu~~damw~td change Illat SB7 represents it is important to Look atthe pmqe of this bill in its historical conlext.The Fair Defense Act, pmed in the 2000-2001 Texas legislative session was the res~llt ofyea~'Sof work by myriad interested groups. 111 1994, he State Bar of Texas created the committee+Legal Services to the Poor in Criolioal hlatters (Legal Services Committee) I was appointed to thatcomn~itlec and sened alongs~de Chmitman Allan Butcl~er and V m Chair Catherine Grecnc BurnettIt was this comnrittee that undertook the job of snrve)iug crimmal defcnsc attorneys, plosecutols,and judges p~residing oxrer crinuval cases. The su~wy focused on indigent 'eprcsentation. TheLegal Scnkes Committee issued a final repol? undm the title, "M~~ting GideonS Trompet: The Cnsisin Indigent C~im~nal Defense in Texas," prepxed by AUan Butcher and Midlael K, Moore.Late, in 1999, Texas Appleseed, a non-profit public-intemt law center, under the helm of BIUBardall, begnn an actnd review ofi~~digeut representation in Tew. Benrddl and his tam visitedlxndomly selected counties to see for tl~emselves how the poor were represented in cri~ind cases.The Appleseed report echoed the hdings and co~~clnsions by the Legal Se~vices cornmiltee. hougtllese.MESSAGEA lack of resources sedously undernu~~ed lawyds abdify to represent poor clients.Defense attorneys assigned to indigeot clients felt that they were subsidizing theco~~nty's obligation to provide legal representation.III many counties the political ~I~IIIE of conrt appointme~~ts gave the in~pression thatcertain lawye~s were favorites of the court and others were not.Defense attornejs reported being refused appointments becawe they did not contributeto the judge's campaign.Prosecuton dcscnbed a gtou~p of appoi~ted defe~~se counsel t1mt only wanted topled their appomted clients and w011ld new go to t~ial. (The State Bar recentlyissued an etlucs opinion stating that it is unetl~ical for an attorney to be qpointed toan ~ndigent defendan! only for the pulyose of l~a\riving the person plead guillj!)49% of judges reported that tl~eir judicial peels sometimes appoint co1111sel becausetiley lwe the reputation for nlomg the cses regardless of the q~~.diQ of the defeose.Based on these dawnling hdiigs, r\ppleseed and the Legal Sewices Committee made seve~drecomn~e~~dations:The State of Texas must make a commiln~ento h~nd indigent representation.The State lnust den~~e and adopt professmnal staudards for representation. There m11st be cr~teria for determining i~ldigeot status aput from wvl~elhera pelson posted bd.There n~ust be adequate and timely co~opensnion to lawyers.The mst be a gumntee of access to necess;u). support services.Data must be collected and monitored.As we dl knoy conumttees come and committees go Couuninee fi1~1mgs and concl~~sions arereached and ignored. ff public opinion lesurrects the same issue of concern - anotl~er committeeis appointed. More findings and co~~cl~~sions ale mched and ignored. But this time there \va.s adifference. Tlus time there was George \V. BIISII.6 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE WWW.TCDLX%COM SEPTEMBER 2001

,\s the Bus11 for president canhpnig~h accelerated in 1999, the 11atio11-d news noledia h~rned a spolligl~t on be Texa Crin~inal Justice Spsten~.Gideon u. IWrwight, tl~elandn~ark 1963 Supreme Court decision, stalkell that the United States Co~tstilution required tltat a poor person beprovided an altomey in crinhind cases. In applying Gideoi~, ia tl~c 1stdecade, sonlc appeUate courts refused to find error wilh ~ IIIII~ la~vyers,sleeping lawyers, atd lauyen who presented no defense. Howevel; ascourts were becoming obsessed wit11 finalizing rlecisions, a portion ofthe news media mas becoming amre of h~ndat~~ental problen~s withinthe Texas crin~inal justice system. \S1Ihes DNA testing begagan proving theinnocence of wrongly convicted prisonen in Tesas and elsewbere, thene\rs media had a story Illat the hnericm people could unde~stand insintple len~~s-imoce~~t people were beu~g ma~~glg co~tvicted. Tilepeople of 'Texas were embarrassed wlhen Carlos Laven~ia andCi~rislopl~er Ochoa\vere released born life sentences. Tile politicia~hs ofTexas were emban~rassed illlo action. SB 7 is the resttlt.SB7 is the first step by the Tesas legislature in addressing tlleseissues. It can be a bold step fonvard or just another failure. TCDW isttying to help make illis effort snccesshd by pro\ridiag low cost seminars,books, and videos to train attorneys w11o mill bandle indigentcriminal cases. i\rlequate training is the essential step toward i~l~provingrepresentation. Crimniual defense attorneys assigned to representtile poor n~tst knowwl~ato do and 11ow to do it. It cannot be, as thereportsfound, only a training ground for young inesperienced lawyenwl~o quit taking court appoinlments as soon as they can. Tbe atlornc)'gcneml for the U.S. even recognized, at a n~eeling in \Vasi~ingto~~ D.C.in 1999, that here is no justice if all the reso~~rces are slacked on oneside of the courtroonl.The nest step for Tesas to take is to provide adeqttate compessationin indigent cases so competent and co~~scientious.la~~ye~s do notbankuupt themselves w11e11 representing the pooc But we c;uh onlytake one step at a time. The Ftir Defense Task k'orce tlhat \\'ill be createdin Janoaly 2002 rvill look at pro.oviding state funding for courtappoinlments in non-capikil cases. \lie ~~41 see.earch Easy" DiskettesTrordPerfect Or BIlcrosoft \TrordVIDEOS~tiun -2.0 CI.E Crerlrl. A Primer for Crimimal Defense Trial Practice .(CDLP) . Videosv:(must be viewed by hvo attorneys per videondering Ektire Assislance of Counsel by Kicllanf Andelsonunlliiig a Tight Ship: Tools & Rules lor a Succnshtl Crimind Defcnseactice b\'Yutcent Perini.. (3) Prel'ri;d ktioas by]. Ccug(4) Making Objections R keselring Ermr hg Brian \Vice(5) Voir Dire bylyrone Bloacriffe(6) Direct 8. Cros-Esan~inalio~~ by Mark Dmiel(7) Opening Statenlent RFinal Argt~ment by Sf;lnle). ScbneiderTAPESRulg Dt~nml, Jtue 2000SEMINAR MATERl. Attacking Forensic E\idence B DefenAUegations, 2001D\Vl Trid Notebook. Jamat): 2001Vedenl Ias Sltor-t Cou~se, SeprembRthsIyl)onnn, June 2000Capital hlurder MI, hlarcl~ 2000. A Pmctid Guide to the Harsh Consequences ol a Sexual OffenseOcc~tpational license Notebook, November 2000The Esscntid Trial Notebook, Ocioher 2000. Step By Step Guide To Representing Ialigent Clients In Crinull.daIm~s, moo2000 Dntll I'endIy Law & l'nclice in Texas (hy Steven Lasch)South Padre - CD1.P Hits the Bwcil, July2000iii Paso Skills Course, hhy 2000.\\'ichita Falls Skills Conise, pnualy 20001999 Capild Mttrdrr Muwal (hy Steven Losch)CDIP HitsThe Beach,J11$1999f'ractice lips From tile Plains, Janll;uy 1999. 1998 milid blerder ;\lantd (b) Steven I.osch)TRIAL NOTEBOOK ACCESSORIESTahs,Tabs, Tabs: pernh:went, Ihole-punched a11d rwdg foryour tiid notel~ookCheat Slieets: Tmls Rules 0fElidence; blakingand hleetingObjections; Conlnlon Drug Ofenses; Lesser 111cIuded offenses.Call Randy at 5 12/478-25 14 or visit our Web site at tcdia.com for pricing and availabiliiySEPTEMBER 4001 \N\KW.TCO&A.COM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 7

B"'nnmg UI Janualy of next year, the Gumnor dl appoint a TaskForce on Indigent Defense. ThisTask Force will be cl~a~ged with implementing the key feah~tes of the Pair Defense Act (Senate Bill71, sponsored md stnded by Scnator Ro&q Ellis. This Act is meant to improve the plight of !heindigent defendmt in crio~ind comts t1~11gI1out Tesas, in pat by imprmhg he quality of defense com~sel.This article is ruenut to clarifyfor defense cot~nsel the baits of the Act.CAPClOLCORNERFee Schedules, Appeals from Refused Bills, Compensation andReimbursementFee scbed~des for co1111-appointedk~e~s must now i~~cl~~de '"reasonable and necmay mpei'l~ead cosfsand the a\dvnilnbiliiof qualified auometx wUing to accept the stated ~ates." If the fee schedule is so low tlwtahqer coukdnot mdntain a law ofice, tl~en tl~efwsckduleis ~urmonabfe. Fee scheddesmust slate leasonablcBaed rates or minim~un md maxi~mm~ ho~~rly ~ntes. Momeys nre also entitled to a fonn "to itemizethe types of sewices peifom~ed," which is necessary for payment. locd associations should prepare loha\-e a voice in creating the fo~m and indude work ha migl~t ordimarlly esape the attenIion of the court,suc11 as witness inteniews, laborious discowy procedures, trips to the jail, uvifhgi tl~e p~usecutor's office,etcetem Tl~e more that judges understand the tinlccansomiug uork we perform outside the courtroom, thegrater the appreciation for the role of the crimi~~al defense attorney in ttte justice system.Appellate coua-appointed lawje~sl~dl now be compensated for prepamtion a ~d preselitatio~l of oldargunlent as well as prepantion of a niotion for rellcmn~g, senkes for nhich !hey were previo~~sly not entitledto mnrpensation."Reimbursement of expenses incurred far purposes of investigation or expert testimony m;ly be pdddirectly to a plimte inwstigator lice~~sod mder Chapter 1702, Occqxitio~ls Code, or to an expert wihrcss inthe manner designated b), appointd com~sel and app~uwd by the court." Att01ne)s dso "shshall be realbursedfor reasonable and necessqmpenm, including cqenses for inistig#tiol~ md for mental k~enltl~ andotl~er experts. Eyienss i~~c~med with prior court 8pp1uwJ sl~shall be reimbuned ui tl~e sane mmcr providedfor capital ms:' SceTex Code Crim. Pro. ; u~ 26.052(0, (&, and (11).For the Grst time, pu may now appd a jndge's decision to cut yo~u voud~er or otl~e~wise pay yo11 1%than wl~alyoo reasonably billed for your work.If ll~e judge disapprows U I requested ~ amount of payment, the ju@ sshall make wtinen findirlgsstating the mount of payment 111at the judge appmm and each reas011 for approving a1mount different J?om the requested amount An attorney wl~osc request for payncnt is &sapprovedmay appeal the disapproval by filing amtion with the presiding judge of the ad&~istrativej~ulkcid regiai~ On the h g ofa motiou, d~eprestdingjudge of the adnlidstmtiw judicialregion shall ~eview the disapproml of papcnt and deternih~e the appropriate anlount ofpa)ment. I11 itviewing d~e disappovd, the pl.esi&~g judge of the ;Idminishntive j~ldicialregiolr may cofld~~ct a headng. Not later tl~an the 45th day after the date an application farof a fee is submitted under this article, the commissioners court shdl pay to theappomted coumel the amon~t that is approved by the presiding judge of the &dmhiistiativej~~dicial region and hat is in accordance with the fee schedule far d18t county.If yon ha\re submitted a reasonable bill, but the trid judge cuts it, thon pou s11011ld appeal the judge'sdisapprovd each ant1 every time it happens. Iawye's may be ren~oved from the appoi~itn~ent list by amajority of the crhuind court judges "if, aftera haring, it 1s S~IOWII that the attorney submitted a clain~ forlegd senices 1101 performed $the attorney."8 VOICE FOR THE DEWNSE UJWVLTCOI.A.COM SEPTEMBER SOOT

Basic Court-Appointed DutiesUnder the Act, court-appointed lawyers must "make evay reasonable effooato contact the defendant not later than the end of the &si stororking day after thedate on which the attorney is appointed and to hiteniew the defendant as soonas p~acticablc after the attorney is appointed." Tl~is does not mean that a lawyerappointed to a defendant in a jd5 ho~us away must drop evelytlling hum&-ately upon appointment, ttavel to tlie jail and meet Ius unexpected client. Youcan have a lette' informiug the client of your existence, addrcs a11d other basicinfomlfion ready to be sent upon the appointn~ent of my case, You iieedo'timiediately visit with tlie client, ba you lave to n~ake a rmonabie effort toconfwt Mm. As soon therexltet, you should interdew tlie client as well.Appointed attomlleys must represent indigent defendmts "outtl chaw wedismissed, the defendant is acquitted, appeals are esl~austed, or the attornq isrelieved of llis duties by tl~e coua or replaced by other counsel afteta finding ofgood cause is entered on the record." Amajorityof c ~Mal court judges "mayremove from consideration for appoh~tolei~t" WI attoliiey wlio "intentionally orrepeatedly violates" tl~eir dntiesDetention Limitations for Arrested PersonsTlie arresting officer must ensufe thg the pelson wrested appears before themagistnte "not later than 48 liou~s after tlie pawn is a~~esled." Ape~son whois wrested witl~out a warrant md who is detained in jail n~ust he released onbond, io an an~ouut not to exceed $5,000 (misdemeanors) or $10,000(felo~ies), not later than the 24th hour sfter the pelsan's amst (4@lio11r afterarmt for felonies) if the person was arrested for a misdemmor aid a magistratehas not determi~~ed u.hether probable cause exists lo believe that the personcommitted the offense. If the person is unable to obtain a surety for thebond or unable to deposit money hi the anlonut of the hond, the person must bereleased on pe~sonal bond. (A prosecutor may le WI application for postponerunltfor release, upon wllic11 the magigmte may postpne the release of aperson - but not for more than 72 hours after the person's arrest.)Appointment of CounselAfW die artestuig officer ensures the person's appearxnce before a magistrate,Ule niagistmte shall not only inform tlie indige~~t that lie has a rigl~torequest the appointn~eut of counsel, ln~tell lhn t11e procedures for doing so,prodde assistance in co~upleting the form for getting a court-appointed lawyer,and appoint the perso11 a lawyer. The niagktrate must also co~umunicnte iuundersta~dable manner for those nrho do not speak or understand tle Jbglisl~language or are ded.Once the person has reqoested co11nse1 and is determined to be indigent,counsel mmt be appointed %ot later tlm tlte end of the fi~st working day alterthe date on which the cowf or the courts' designee recei17es the defendant'srequest for appoititt~~ent of counsel" UI counties witha pop111atio11 of 250,000 ormore. III mnl counties, counsel must be appointed 'Tmaiediately followi~~g heexpi~xtion of three working days after the (late onwlucli the coun or the cottrts'designee receives he dcfendait's reqaest for appoh~tment of counsel."Defendants rcleased from custody before cou~~scl has been appoirited arce~ltitled lo counsel at thefi~st coua appeaMllce or when adve~saial judici@lproceedingshave bee11 initisted, wllicl~ever cows filsThe criminal coorts collectively (judges of county courts, stat~lio~y comlycou~ts, and d~sfrict col~rts) sl~all adopt and publish by local ~ule written co1~13-wide procrtlures for timely and failly appoh~thg counsel for hdiget~t defendants.Wheel System for AppointmentA court must appoint an attorney from a public appointment list using asysrenl of rotation from among tl~e nest fiw nanm on the list, with someexceptions. Tlie cou~t may, upon afinding of good cattse, appoint an attorneyout of order. Au attorneywho is not zppomted in tlrc order inwluch theattorney's name appws on Llie list shall remain next in order on the list.The procedures nlusi ensure that each indigent defendant who appears81 couawit11011t counsel has all oppoihruity v to confer wvithappoi~ited couilselbefore the comnlencemnent of judicial p~oceedings.Appointments must be "allocated among qualified attornqs in a mannerthat is fair, neuhd, wd nondimiminatoq" The appointment list willbe graduated according to the degree of serio~iousues of the offense and theanorneys' qualifications. Qualifications for court appointments must beobjective and met tile standards specified by the Task Force on IndigentDefense. The coui% may appoint layea for felony defendants "fron~ anycounty located in the court's administrati e judicial region."The cou~ts must "make an effort" to appoint lawyers who axe can con-1111u1ieate % ala~guage mulerstood $the defendant" for thosew110 do notspeak and understand the English b~igusge or wlio are de&Alternative ProgramTw~tl&ds of the criminal co~ut judges luay establish an alternalivespten1 of appointment. The alter~~ative systen~ may use a single method forappointing cou~~sel or a combhation of mell~ods, ad use a niulticountyappointment list usiug a syste~i~ of rotation. IIoweTer, the procedures mustensure that court-appointed attorneys "n~eet specilied objective qualEcations,~d~ich ray be grnduated according to the degree ofseriousnm of theoffense," and that appomtumts are "reaso~iably a11d impartially allocatedamong qualified attorneys." The alternatke prng~an~ must also beapproved by the presiding judge of the admisishxttve jt~dicial region, aidmay not obligate tlke county by contkxct or by the creation of new pasitionsthat incrme county expmdilures wihout tl~e appro& of the commissioner'scourt.Death Penalty CasesCon~ls lnusl appoint hvo attorneys iu deatb penalty cases, one of mllommust be "qualified" under the lMr Defense Act. A lawyer who represeutsdefendants facing the drmtli penalty must be qualified, wlich nwm: she isa State Bar ~iien~ber who eshibifs profieie~~cy and conlmitmcnt to prouidiugqualityryresentation to defendants in death penalty cases." She must alsohaw at least fiw yeas in cri11~1d litigation flnlzd "fried to a verdict as leaddefense co~u~sel a signiEcuit n~unber of felony cases, including honucidetrials and other trials For olfel~ses punisl~able as second or first degreefelolies or capitalfelouies." She mustdso have trial experiencein "the useof ad cl~allenges to a~ental health or forensic expert wiheses" and"investigating *and prmenti~~g n~itigatiug e\,idence at the penalty phase of adeath pe~~alty trial." Fmdg to be qufied to be appointed to a dathpwalty case, cou~~sel "have pwttcipated in coi~hiuing legal educationcourses or other f~dning relating to crinli~~al defense in death penaltycases."A local selection connilittee for appointn~ent of counsel on dead1 penaltyc;lsessl~all amend stmdards prwiously adopted by the committee to conformwith tbese new req~ke~iients not later than April 1,2002.SEWEMBER 200. WWW.TCDLA.COM VOILE FOR THE DEPENSE 9

I~FrornAM OverFiftll Circuit NewsThe expansion of federal firarms law took :a1 interesting turn in the Fifth Circuit in UnifedSfnfes u.IVhite, iNo. 00-40393 (5"' Cir., July 13, 2001). The issue on appeal, raised byfor~lier TCDW PresidentGerty Goldstein and TCDW Secreta~y Qntl~ia Orr, was \\.hctller State convictio~ls for reckless co~lduct fork~~owu~gly pointing a firearm at and in the direction of one's spouse or terroristic tl~rats by istcntionallymd knowingly threateni~g to kill one's spouse with intent to place one's spouse ie fear of immineotserious bodily injury constituted a crime of domestic ~iolence as required by the federal statute prollibitingthe possession of firearm by one con\ictetl of a misdeme;o~or invol\u~g :I crime of doluestic violence.18 U.S.C. 5 922(g).The underlying ~nisdemanor otfe~~ses were the bye you ~lonlmdly see ill a County Coun f,ln~ily \iolenceprosecution. In one case, i)L: \VMe had bee11 comicted of reckless cor~rl~lct in violalio~~ of 5 22,05(a) ofthe Texas Penal Code for "recklessly engag[iog] i~ COII~IICI that placed [his spouse1 in itmi~le~~t dat~ger ofserious bodily inju~y by tllen and there knowingly pou~ti~~g afir~rm at and in the direction of [his spouse]."In the second case, hews convicted of terroristic tl~r~tinvioltio~~ of 5 22.07 of the Texa Pen;d Code for"iotentiondly ;uld knowingly tbreaten[ing] to co~lu~iit an offe~~se hvoI\ing violence to [his spouse], aame-Iy, tbreate~~ed to kill [his spouse], wit11 intent to place [her] in fwr of in~mi~~e~~t se~ious bodily inju~y"The Eiftl~ Circ~~it panel of Judges Ganvood and Barksdale, and Judge HaU of the Ninth Circuit, sittingby desigoation, recognized the section 92'2(g)(9), "by its terlns, cat) be violated only by one 'TVIIO hasbeen co~wicted in ally court of a ~~us~le~~iea~~or crime of do~l~estic violence.' Section 92l(a)('33)(.A)defiles 'nustleme:~nor crime of domestic violence' so Illat no offe~lse is inclutled witl~i tht de011itio11uoless it ... 'Ilas, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or threatened use of a deadlyweapon,' agtinst the victio~." After tl~orougl~ly reviewing the statutoly elements of reckless conduct ;o~dterroristic threat from t11e pala1 code, the opinion concl~~detl that ~~eitller offense met tl~e definitio~~ ofcrime of domestic violence.Despite tl~e k t that the issue wns not i~ised at trial, the paoel revelxed tl~e co~~viction l~olding t11:d"jurisdictional defects sncll as an indictment's failure to rllarge an oflense" may be ~ised at any time.Because the imdct~~~el~t on its face reflects as a nlatter of la\\# hat neither of the only hvopredicate oIIenses alleged in the court of co~iviction for viokniog section 922(g)(9) wns a'crime of do~~lestic violence' ns reqoired by that section and sectiou 921(a)(33)(1\), \\l~ite'sconviction is reversed adthe cause re~~~anded for proceedings collsistent Pere\\itl~.Also, significantly, the Fifth Circuit held that the Defendant's appeal wiver co~~tainedlus plea bargillagl~ment did not bar I~im from cl~alle~lging the sufiicie~~cy of the i~ldictlnento allege an offense onappeal. "The gowrnacnt cites no authorit): and we are xv:lre of none, that holds Illat :I defendant can\wive his substantive right to be free of prosecution under an i~~dictment tl~at fails to cllarge an offense."'ARA Tinkering with Ethics RnlesAs the Voice goes to press, tl~e Ao~erican llar Association is consideri~~g a cllange h~ etl~ics rules for1:ln)ers relating to the attorney client privilege. The ~ III~II~III~II~ would expand exceptions to the confidentialityrules wl~icl~ cwrently allow a lanyer to reveal information to prevent a clie~~t from co~luuittioga crime tl~at is likely to result in inlmineol death or serious bodily harm Accortlitlg to a report in tl~ei\'umI'ork Tirires, the proposed chuge would permit more disclosure, allowing Ia\qw.j to report idor~natioato prevent "ressonebly ccrtai~~" death or sobstantial inju~): Tl~ere would be no requirement tl~athe 11armbe il~~lui~~ent or the result of :I crime by the client. \Vl~ilc the ABI\ etl~ics guidehlcs are 11ot binding on theskrtes, they are inflnentiel. \\hetl~er any cllar~ges I)y the ABA may l~are :ra effect OII the Texas "crime-fraudexception" to the lawye~client privilege is doubtful, but a trend a\vay from confidentialit). scel~~s to strikeat tlle nature of our profession.Garbage Offe~iseshly local paper recently featured a stoq about a lwi in :Lnearby coltnty being prosecuted for theft ofsemice for tl~rowiog a few lboses of flash into a dmpster Illat did not beloq to 11in1. The fimt trial errdednfrer the j111-j could not rcacl~ a verdict. The lone holdout for acquittal reportedly slated that the c11;u.ge IKISasinioe. July ~~~~IliEcatio~r is :dive. Relieve it or not, hot11 sides are preparing for a September retrial.COMMENTSEPTEMBER 2001 \Nww.TCDLA.COM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 1 I

Let me set the stage: You represent Denwd Dopedealer who got captured wit11 10 idlogtm ofclack cocaine. Because of his prior eri~niod record and the facts in Ms case, he will be at offetisclevel 43 and cmind histoiy categotyV1. This meals tl~at he is looblg at a sentence of life impciso~ment.You, howwer, !lave represented him brilliantly. Because the gwecnment desperately needs I&as a wimess, 701111ave entered into a pla agreement wl~icl~ cdls for him to enter a plea of guiltyto a violationaf Title 18 U.S.C. 9 4 (misprision of a felony). You and hc are deligl~ted hecause pu 11aw cappedhis punishment at a fonr year sentence.Now, jmn we standing iu front of a Unitcd Shtes District Judge who is co~~cemd abont the ~olmhrlncssof Dmsootl's pla of guilty The judge peers over his glasses md asks the nlagic q~~estion, "Doesyo~n williiess toplend gniltyresnlt fro111 pkor discussions bemeen the attor~~eyfor tlm government and7011 or your anorneyT' The amri$, of course, "Yes!"Lastweek, a United States Magistrate Judge raised t11e issue with an rhim~tUnitedStltes Altnrney andme as to tllc Rule 11 Fed. R. Crim. I? rq~urement forthe asking of snch a question:The cowt shall not acccpt a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first, by addrd~gthe defendant personaUy in open court, deternliuiog that the plea is volunh~y and not theresult of force or threats or of promises apart konl aplea agreement. %# court shrrlaLroit~qui~w rrs to whether the d&endatrr's willingnes~ to pleudgui6@ or nolo contedcmres116tsp.om prior d~cnsswons befu~az the attornq for fbegownnzmit and the dcfaidantor the defendant's f6Norncy~. (En~pl~asis added).FEDERALCORNERSiuee she is so nmch more of a scholar than either of us, urc knew that she was only being courteonsin making her it~qui~y of us. \Ye all came to the same conclusion: It doesn't nmtter what the clefenda~t'sanswer is, he trial judge's burden is siu~ply to detemdnewhether the p h is \fdu~it~y or not.Some )vats ago, this nlight 11m been a prohiem hecause the United States Coluf. of Appcals for theFifth Circuit regnlarly gave fdinggmles to trinl judges witliin the circuit who fniled to strictly con~ply wiLtlre provjsions of R~de 11.Then along came Unitcd Stares u. &chj~nskJ: 934 E2d 1349 (5b Ck. 1991) and United Statar u.Johnson, 1 E3d 296 (56 C& 1993). h tl~ese ho cases, the en bane court reviewed Rule I1 issnes andchanged the gnnc. Mu; ifa misthis made dnring the Rule 11 plea colloquy, it sluU be dewed forI~arlules errol:Ovec tl~e last few yam, the court 1L4S found l~xmle% CITbY in \hat wolild lia~been reversible errorcases before BRc@ns@ and Jolmson; eg, Fdul-e to inquire as to the voluntariness of the plea. UnifedSfalesu. Snrjth, 184f3d 415 (56Ci. 1993); and, failure toinquire tu to tl~epnnlslnnent ixnge. Umife6iStatm u. Ibspez-B&~~~( 197 E3d 169 (5*Cir. 1999).Recnnly, tl~ough, the court retired tl~e fropl~y in concluding that the failure of the dist~ict court toinform the dcfendmt of the nature of the charge ag8imt lIini; to explm tlie maxhu1im posslhle penaltyprovided by Iau: to eiplain that tl~e coin1 wns required to consider tl~t senter~cillgguidelines; to informthe defendant that halguidtyplea dfected a waiwr of various rights; to watn tlledefcndant that fdsemlswersX 2 VOICE EOR THE DEPENSE WWlN.TCDLA.COM SEWEMBER ZOO1

provided at the plea 11ea1~1g could subject hiin to a prosecution tor perjuryor false statement; to inform i l defendant ~ that, nnder the terms of theplea agrcemeut, he w;\swaiving Us right to appek and, to deternunc BINtbe pla was voluntaq and not the result of force md threats was harmlesscrrol: United States a Cucvrs-Andrah, 232 323d 440 (5h Cic2000).Then, for theicing on the c.lke, the court wnt on to iiupose upon tl~eIm~e~san cthicd dutytoadvisc the trial court ofits failure to con~ply withRule 11:. . .we nnmst obsem tlmt either the United States Attomeynor Cuevas-Andndnde's attorney rnised any contempo~xneous~DJEUIOIIS ro tee arsmcr co~ms rauure lo comply wnuRule 11. (It should be noted, ho%revc~ that bars-Anhade Is represented by new cou~isel an appd.) Asofficer of the coun, attorneys imve both 'an obligation 2ndan interest in ~insnri~~g that a guilty plea proceeding complieswith dl coustitntional and stab~toq requWmei~ts,'OiiitedStnt@s u. Bc6egoIl~11-Banrrefa, 195 E3d 786,790n. 2 (5th Cir. lw), and accordingly sbould imnnlediatel'bring my f3ilure in cou~pltance with Rule 11 to the anentionof tlie dishkt court.It almost makes you wonder wliy we even need a judge for a pleaIl~ZlilIg.NEW MEMBERENDORSERLend SAnnual duesjmt S25.00NameName ofMcmberAdhcih, State- Zip'Jllepho~icFax -E-mailSBPIEMBIR 2001 WMlW.TCDLA.COM VOlCB FOR THE DEPBNSB 13

NOT GUILTY VERDICTS FROM THE FOUR CORNERSTim Inman recently won an intoxicalion assault in B~~rnet County and along wit11 co-counsel MarvinFoster defeated a "dn~g free zone" allegation il a deliwy of o~arijuana case.\ViIlinm '%ill" D. Cox HI, woo n july trhl io the 194th ont of Dallas Cocmntyin a possession vilhintent to deliver 231 g ~ms of crack coaine case. The facls at tc~d showed tile defendant was named inseardl wavnn?~nt, he bad $1,800.00 in pocket, scales, a sawed-&shotg~m, a handgun, a rifie and wmstanding next to ibe cab~net~$rhese cocaine was found.JUSTICE SERVEDDavid Sergi semred the release of Calvin Waslungton using DNA evidence to pr01.e bis hocence.W&gion was convicted of capital nnurder in 1986 and sc~~te~~ced to Me. T11e pardon application iscnrrently being considered by the board.mid Sergi sec~~red a rmemd on factual sufficiency grounds for an agg~~~vated robbery conviction.At trial, dcfense co~u~sel preseiited a con~pelling case of abi, though \pork rccords ill~d CO-wo~kem.That and the fact tl~nthere was evidence that another person had comniitted the robbe~y became thefocw of ihe Waco Conrt of Appeal in its decision to revem. Tl~e state 11as filed a PDR.The Tmvis C011nv District Attorneys office dismissed withoufpwjfidfce State of Terns '. IaC~esbaMUI'III~ TCDLA ~ncmbe~s Keith Hwnpton, Linda Ieenl~aeer-Raim and Kmeron Jol~nson represented hezWHAT'SGOING ONLOCAL BAR ASSOCIATION ANNOUNCEMENTSHarris Counfy Crinund Defense La\\ye~s Asociation bas rccently elected Wayne Hill as its newPresident. IICCDW provides n@r hozm seminars in tile schedrtle helou:IN YOUR CORNEROF TnXAS?LET US KNOW15121 4782514Scptcsber 20:October 18:November 15:Decenlha 20.Janmy 17:Februa~y 21.March 21:ApiL 1%May 16AduIte~mts & Dilnhnls: Codeine C ~es by Norm Silrern~mJ~\~enile Iaw byV1qne HillAdable Probation ProgramsALR by Chris SamuelsonDiscove~y by Cynthia IIenlepBlood by Troy h1cKinneyVoir Dire by Gaq Mcl~terJudges %Prosecutors: Dealing wit11 the Good, the Bxd, mi (he UglyTouw Hall Me~eefing: Leading issues in the eou~thouse today14 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE \NIIVW-TCOLA.COM SEPTEhlBER I001

R 1001 MlWW..KDLA.COM V~ICE FOR THE DEFENSE 15

Statiig up mrl tuanaging a law office is no different than starti~~gup a~y SIII~ business. It takesmotivation, desire and talent. It &o takes lescarch aud plmning. like a trial, s~~ccess stalts withplanning adbeing able ta copewth cl~aUeoges. To increase your chance fo~s~1cces5, take the meII~ front to explore a17d evaluate your professional and personal goals. Then use tllis informtion to bnlld aco~uprehensix~e and well-tl~onght-out business plat1 that udll help you reach these goatsTl~e process of developing a business plan will help yo11 think thtoutgl~ some illlporhnt issltes that yo11 maynot have considered yet. Your plau wviU hemn~e a wluable tool :IS your practice develops. It sl~ould also pmvide~lulestonesgauge your s~~ccess.GETTING STARTEDBefore startmg out, understand why you want to go into private proct~ceAsk yourself ihese questions.Do yo11 wmt to be your onm boss?Do yo11 nrallt to create a Ern1 wit11 otller attonlcyslDo yo11 want to work for an csiablislted law Gra?THENext you need to deiermme what kind of law proctlce is rlght for youAsk yourself these questionsDo yo11 want to take nlisden~emor cases?Do yo11 nmt to lakc felony cases?Do yo11 want to take feileml cases?Do )a11 nnmt to take c1;m C cases?Do yo11 wmt to take appeds?Do you \\,ant to take parole caes?Then you should identify the niche your practice will fill.Conduct the necessary research to answer these questions:Is my id= p~r~ctical?Are tllere enough criminal cases in the area ~QII ~ mto t pl~dice to e~nployyou and the other attonleys inyour locally?%'illy011 h~ve to soppletnent your pmctice by taking cid casesor jwenile cws?Who is the competition?Wlo are the best hye~s?How do they conduct thek law office?What good a ~d bad placlices can you lenrn fmm th?PRE-BUSINESS CHECKLISTThe final gep before develop~ng your plan 1s the prebusiness checkl~st.You should answer these questions.What skills and experience do you 11a\sePFor exn~~iple: flccofloti~g, i~rwsfn~e~~t k~zotiiledge,jrior br~s!ness esperie~lce16 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE W-TCOLA.COM 5EWEMBER 2001

Your answen d help you create a focused, well-researched busi-ness plan that should serve as a blueprint. It should detail how yourprrtctia? NU be operated, managed and capitdized One of t l most ~ilnpolTant cornerstones of startingup a lnw office is the busiuess plan.Once you have cumplcted your business plan, review it with n mentoror experienced attorney. The business plm is a flexible doexrment thatshauld chap as your bnsiness grows.Infi~mrtion in this a~ficle wns coniributed @ tbeS~nal/BusfnsssAssociation at m,sba.gov ai~d b~~Romld Z @rigs ofArnarIlto.\That equipment or supplies will you need?Fot eq~ipmeut: compare awning verstls renting md hvidingFor a'nmpIe: a mlnputer;pri!zfe~; cob))machine, phone SJ~S~BIII,,~~~ n~acbhe, smner,jmifwe, ce1Ipbo1~ orpgm; U ~Y~~IMRFS~YI~softumq arsa tnanq@nercl softium ibatmntah a calendar and client firrckirzg, andnccaunfing sojiuurm~For supplies: ask several esperiaicedaltotnqs for Iheir office sopply UstFor mmple:jIe foldm, yapel; enuelopes, postage,letle~~ktd, lnrsinw cnrdsTCDLAMEMORIALIZESWhat research nlaterials will )m need?Far wwple: :a book 011 jui:~! cbca&es,otr-liue legal msea~rh, n book that mntuins all the oit~~inrrlcodosWhat qecid &lions do you need to dlress man uttorne@ale state bar has the ulfo~m~(tioo on sctilng upan IOLTA account. Thestate bar also ltas theiuforn~ation on attonwy adve&hg.What, if any, fi~iancing will you need?Will yau need to apply for a loan?How nu~ch will you necd to borrow?Where will my business be located?hIost altarneys f31d it ~lvautilgeuus to oflice llear the courthouse.Howem, if distance is a concern, some attornep set up a post office boxnear their hououse and stop U~aemy nim&g on the way to their officelocated near the courlhouse es the miles driven from pi~rhouse to theo&e are not n deductible husn~ess apmsc.SEPTEMUER 2001 WWW.-LA.COM VOICE EOR THE DEFENSE 17

Tlus lnotion cl~allellgesthe practice of cbarging a second family violence assault as a felony wl~cn there\\%IS no afinnotiw finding in the prior judgment. hsanlt is 1)pically a n1isdemeanor.1 A second assaultIII). be a third degree felony if the second offense involves fanlily~lolence and the defendant has a priorfanlily ~iolence assa~ult comic ti on.^ This issue addressed here is that the prior conviction sl~ould contaiu an"&r~native finding' of riolence against a family or household lnember in order to be properly classified as afamily violence conriction.~Pmsecutors are filing family \~iolence assaults as felo~ues eve11 wl~en there are no prior atXr111ative h~didgs.The State argues they mayprove tltc prior assault involvedfat~~ily~iole~~cethe trial of the later ofe~ise.~ Tluscourt actually lacks juristliction, it is arguably an appealable pre-th order6 The appellate courts may evenhlauyrefuse to e~~terlain Illis issue on interlocuto~). appeal.7 Ne~~ertl~eless, the matter n~ust still be raised beforetrial to avoid the risk of waiver.8 Tlus issue can also he appealed alter a negotiated plea if properly raised bypre-trial nlotion.9CAUSE NO.THB STAE OFVS.DEFENDANT# IN THF. JUDICIALDISTRICT COURT OFcoum,TExAsTO THE HOXOR4BLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT.COAIES NO\V, DDe~~dant m1t1 i\lrplicant in the :ibove-entitled and llunlbered cause, througl~ counsel,,ad files tlus Motion to Quash the Cl~arging laslmme~it and Plea to thep~risdiction in Illis cause.III support Illereof \voultl show the Courl the foUowing:1.Ih'OICThlENT MILS TO CHARGE A FELONY AiD \'EST IUKISDICTIONThe judga~ent of conviction alleged in the indictment does not coa~in any&nnative findings of violenceagainst a family or Ihousehokl member. (,Tee Esl~ibit "1\").'0 For a fmily violence assault to be a felon):. . . .. . ..of the j~~dg~~~ent is entered. SeeB.t.42.013, Tea. Code Crini. Proc. Am. (Supp. 2001) (fachlal hlding requiredat time of col~viction); ht. 42.01 (5), Tes. Code Crini. Proc. Ann. (Supp. 2001) (jutlg~nent should contain an)'finding "entered pursuant to Article 42.013"). The inrlictment fails to state a felony offense witl~~the jurisdictionof the district court. See Art. \: Sec. 8. TPX. CONST. (1984); )kt. 4.05, Tes, Code Crin~. Proc. Ann. (Supp.2001).11.STATE hW;1' NOT IIE-LKIGATE ISSUE OP FAMILY VIOT.ENCE.The Slate is barred from re-1itig:Uiq the issue of fa~llilyviolence by both a nlaedatory stahlte :111d col-1;lteml estoppel. See Article 42.013, Tes. Code Cri~n. Proc. Ann. (Supp. 2001) (any haling of family \-iolence"shall" be entered by the court rendering the judgnlent), AXm~ative factual findings in crin~inal caes must be~llade at llle tin~e ol ju(Ignlent and 111i1y not be ~natle later. Ex Pmte Shma, 724 S.\VZd 75, 77 (Tes. Cc App.1987) (could not make deadly weapon finding a h con\'iction, i.e. upol~ probatiol~ revocation). Because theparties and the issue i re identical to those in the prior final jndgnlent, the State is also collaterally estoppedfrom re-litigating this fact issue. See 5111 & 14111 Aae~~dments to the U.S. Collstihllioll and i\rt. I, Sec.s 9, 10,14, of ll~e Texas Constitntion ;lndikt. 1.10, Tes. Code Crilo. I'roc. Ann. (1977);Asheri. Srt,ensort, 397 U.S. 436,445 - 446,90 S.CI. 1189, 1195 - 1196,25 I..Ed Zd. 469 (1970);E~Pmte Twce,; 725 S.'X!Zd 195, 199 - 200(Tes. Cr. App. 1986).m.MUSE hlUST RE TRANSFERRE0Because the indictment cliiqes a nustlemeanor, tlus Court lacks subject mntter jurisdictio~~ ow theoffense. Art. \: Sec. 8, TU. CONST. (1984); Art. 4.05, Tes. Code Crin~. Proc. ,~III.(Supp. 2001). The Courl onlyhas jurisdictios to tlmsfer the cause to the proper court. Art. 21.26, Tex. Code Crini. Proc, 141111. (1989) (rlistrictcourt IIIIIS~ tnnsfer cause a,l~en intlictn~ent cl~ilrges ody a ~nisdenleanor); nccord~Uitche//ti. St&, 82 118 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE WlWW.TCOLP.COM SEWEMBER ZOO1

IS.\TZd 420,423 (Tex App. -Amtin 1998, pet. r&d) (wke out of state DWI conviction did not quatrfy as pilor comictionunder statute, district co~ulonly had jurisdrction to ttmsfer cause lo n~isdenleaim court).MREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defenda~d prays Iht tile indictment be qttashed and fi~rthcr that the ause be tmnskl.red to a court vith tdsdemeanorju~isdiction.The above signature cenifies that on the - day o f ,CBRTIPICATB OF SERVICE20-, a true and correct copy of tl~e foregoing donrmeut was sent to the Stale'sAttotneyCAUSE NO.THB SATE OF TEXAS @ IN THB JUDICIAL§J'S. 5 DISTRICI' COURT OEORDER ON b1OTION TO QUASH CHARGAnG Lh'STRUhIENThVDTO lTlE JURISDIGI'IOA' OF 1WE COURTOn this day m e on to be l~eard the forcgoiug hbtion to Q11as11 Charging Instlmient and Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court, and Ihe Court havingheard and considered the same:IT IS OllDERED that the nrotio~l is hereby:And if said hlotionis granted the Char ing h~stroment pending in said cause is hereby Quashed and transferred to thea court wit11 misdemeanor jurisdiction. 1 PSigned this -(lay of ,20-.BKIEF IN SUPPORT OF illOTION TO QUASH ANDPLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUKSI.INTRODUCTIOXTl~c Defend;~~~t chdenges the jurisdiction of this Court because the indictnlent charges only a ill is demeanor. Prior co~~riclio~~s alleged to vestfelony jurisdiction are essential elements of the offense. The jodg~nent dleged in the indictmn~t docs not co~~laie the ~~~a~~rlato~).:~tfilrnnti~~e finding offanilyviolence. Hecmse tlus faclual issue is required to be resolved at the time of the prior conviction, it IIW~ not be proved a later prosecution. Tlus Courtlacks subject matter jurisdictio~~ over llle misrlc~~~eanor offense cllargetl in the indiclmet~t.11.OFFEXSE CHt\RGEDa. Reonirements of Felony AssaultTile indict~nent in this case altenlpts to cllarge a felony offelm under Scc. 22.01, Tes. Penal Code Ann. (Supp. 2001). That statute provides, io relcvantpart, zs follo\vs:",(b) An otfense under Subsection (a) (I) is a Class A mistle~neanor, except ti~athe offense is a felony of the tl~ir degree if the offense is commitledagainst:(2) a n~e~nber of tile defe~~dant's fmily or llousehold, if it is shown on the trial of the offense tllat the tlefel~cla~~l ilas been previously conrlcledof an offense against a member of the defendant's faniig or housel~old under this seclion.(e) 711 Illis sectiow(I) "Fas~ily" has tile me;u~ing assigned by Section 71.003, Failllily Code.(2) "Household" has li~e nleaning assigned by Seclio~l 71.005, Palnily Code. Id, hsa~~lt is ortli~larily a ~~~istle~~~eanor. Id i\ fa11uIy violenceassault call be a felo~~y within the district court's j~~risdictio~~ only if the i~~dicto~ent allcgcs a qualiI)ing prior cowiction. Id.SEPTEMBER 2001 \nrWW.TCDLA.COM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 19

2000, no pet. hist.) (because "forgety" did not qualify w prior co~~\iclion, district court did not h e "jurisdiction" attd mas( Irmfer cnse); illitchell u Stnte,821 S.\Ic2d 420,421 (Tes, App. -Austin 1998, pet, refd) (defective D\Vl prior deprived felonycourt of jurisdiction and only empowered lo transfer to prop-er court).\T1HHEKEPOKE, I'KEbllSES CONSlDEKED, Defettdat~t prays that this i~tdictnlentdiclion.be quashed and the cause be tmasferred to a coert with ti~isden~eanorRespectfully hbn~itted,juris-i\ttorney for DefendnntTlie above signatitre certifies that on the - day of -,CBRTIFICATE OF SERVICE20-, a true ad couect copy of the foregoit~gdocut~~entwas set11 to the State's Attome):1. .Ye? 22.01 (h), Ter. Penal Code hnn. (Supp. ZWI).2.M &c. (h)(2).3. ,\rt. 42.013, Ter. Code Crinl. Proc. ,\nn (Supp. 2041); Art. ,12.01 (5). Tw. Codc C6m. I 'm ,\on. (Supp. 2001).4. TheStaan~:iy~ttcnipt to prox this fxtisruc by tatunoay olti~cdclin~ in the prior offense. Although thismotion addrmasthe issue a s joridirliond mrller, pncdencenould dicwcohjectingta mlysoch erid~nce at trial. Rule 53.2, Ter. R. ,\pp. Proc. (\Vest 2001). Onc should dso request an instncction tinliting da tcstintony to pradngtl~prior comiction. Rule 1.05 (b),T?xH El (\&st 2001).5. In BNOIS 1,. Slde, 22 S.\\!Jd 540 (Tes. App, lil P;ua 2000, no pet. hisl.), thc court hcld :t 'lorg-n)' comiction did not qadify :u prior thcfl nccesmq'to wise $109.00 Illell to felony Id.at 54.1, Signifimlly, the appellant xu only cansicted of thc lasrr includctl allrnse of mirdmeanor thefi. Id. Bccsusc thc caun hdd tile district coorl did not h:w ivtirl "jurisdiction', the matlrrxu rerwndcd uith instructions la misfcr to nlisdpnica,or roun. Id,; conrjwre ,\rt. 4.06. Tpx. Codc Grim I'ror. Anll. (1977) (district court h;u jarisdiction oier any n~idmnlemor incllided infclony); K(& a Stole, 865 S.\PZd 26, 27 (Tey Cr ,\pp 1993) (could reform to lesar included offense supponcd by e\idcnte); Kulc 41.2 (c), Tes. R. App. Prac. (\\'?st 2001) (niay renderjudgitrnttrid caun wthoriml).6. The Rules ofi\pppllate Procedure do not expressly permit :appeal from Illis mriitillly ialdon~taq'order The nin; discussing this issec, howwr, hold that :l diatrirt rolnl lhu no 'YIINSdiction"to pracrcd upon ;ln indictnmt chqing 3 nlisdpmcanar. Sm ag., Umm (3. Slnle. 22 S.Xr.Jd 540, 5.14 (Tn App. El l?uo ZWO, no pet. irist.);.tlilci~//~lln Slflle, 821 S.\Y2d ,120, 425(T~Y. dpp. ,\ustin 1998, pfl, r~Pd). The district court is only emporered to tmsfcr thc r;uc lo r nlisdenmnor coun. See An. Zi 26, Tcx. Codc Cnm. I'rac. ,Ann. (1989% E.~I'~~rleJo~res, 682S.\\'zd 311, 313 (Ter. Cr dpp. 1980); R,rn>s, nijm st 514: .llilc~//, a@ at 43, As r purely jarisdictional chdcngc, r goad urgummt could he nude thlt Illis lorllrr should he :ipp~dahle un juridictiand pln is bar B,rl sccHwb.ilk jr SloI,le, 958 S.\\'Ld 226, 228 -229 (Ter. Cr App. IYN) (no jurisdiction to Ihmr cal1ater.d csloppd appd allere it \wold not hr pros~nlion andcnlillc appeilzM to releaje from confinen~ent).7. Brtaase thc duty to tmnsfcr to n midcntc;umr court is boh ~mi~lisl~rirl and mandator); this irsuc n~iy dm hc rwiewble by sandmwr. See M. 2126, s~rprfl; Cflrcin a Slnl@, 596S.W.2d 524,529 (Tes. Cr ,\pp. 1980) (gcmting niandmns to prment proscculion asdcr qa:ulml indirtnwnt bwauie 1ri.d court lost jaridiclioa).8. Uuc to :I quirk in Tens 1:1y mphing rmtotcly rmmbhlg ;ul llldirtzn~nt !!il vmt jwisdiction in t h trid ~ COII~. kt. \', SK. 12, TFX COST i\\X (1991); Art. 1.14 (h), TCI. Cod? Crilll.Pror ,\lm (bl,p. 2001); ( n ~ r'U.usc t canlpl;unt of torn) or sahst;me of chnrging inslnmn~eel bclorr trial). SmSlnder rt Stole, 799 S.\T.Zd 263, 272 (TPX. Cr. ,\pp. 1990). As ircsult, a pre-mu1motion to qauh is necessav la presene error for appeliarc rc\irw Id9. Sm H ~ 25.2 P (h)(3), Tcx. R App. Froc (\\'?st 2001) (p~rnlilting sppnl dter negotiated plm il ".. raised by witfen motion and mlrd qon before trial.").10. I\" offel. of pmaf ujU be necmsan. to support appellate rcriew on this issur. A rertiiicd ropy of the prior judgment of can&idioa should be ofered in midrncc :I! lllc lhearillg on llicnol lion lo qaasl~. Ntern;tti\rlx thc mamnt c;m h:nc thc Slllc stipulalc lo the ka. The State sliould dlhcr atipulrle thc ropy of the j;ldgment is true :md correct or lllrt the judgn~ent :flCgcd dom: ,ps-First Chair Attorneys - go to the messageboard in the "members only" sectionof our website to list your upcominghearings and trials. You know$xi coulduse the help.. Second Chair Attorneys - go to messageboard and search for opportunitiesto learn and gain experience.SEPTEMBER 2001 WWW.TCDL&.COM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 11

Tluee of these 'katc11-all" provisions are in: (1) tire h ~ e Career dCrin~hal Act (MU) at 18 U.3.C g 924(e)(Z)(B)(ii), (2) the agpatedfelony enl~ancen~eut for aliens convicted of illegal reentty under 8 U.S.C. S.1326(b) (Z), the pylior aggrawtcd felony being partly dehed at 18 U.S.C. 5I6(b), and (3) the "tlrree strikes" Iaw for prior convictions for "serious ~iolentfelony" at 18 U.S.C. g 3559(c)fZ)(F)(ii).These are strrtuto~y enl~;mcements affecting maxhnom sentences, notgmdelines. Tile federal Sentencing Guidelines do not affect statutouy maximumsentences md have no defuitior~ for any of these three statutory termsofart. See, e.g., U.S.S.G. $9 ZLl.2,4B1.4. Simtlarcatclr-dl provisious existelsewhere ie Title 18 but are beyond the scope of this article.'Tl~cse three enhanceroeut laus use three labels that beg the question:"\fiat are "violent felonies," "agg~xmlc~l felonies," and "se~ious violentfelonies?"This sounds like a quuestion oflau~, but the labels and catch-aU provisionsare misleatling The bnsic flaw in all three catch-aU provixo~~srs tlwt theydo not rely on "elements" defined by law and fo~md by ju~rics. Elements are"[those wnstitumt pats of a c ~be which must bc p~wed by the proseci~tionto sustain a conviction." B1flck.v law Dictjo~rfl~j: 5" ~IL, p. 467.Rather, they rely on judicial fact ti~ding (or subjective opl~~ioos) about anoffense's alleged risks, apart finm its elementsAs this article explxins, the th~ee catch-all pluvis~ons present a questionof fxt for sentenciogcout~. Fiuuther, it is afact q~uestion that is never a&-dicflted before a jmy. The courts .IIISUW the fact q~~estion and then converttheir anmas into 11de.s of sentelm cnhancernent law fhat are new legislatedby Congress or stnte legislatt~res.This article e\plaius how the catch-all enhancement provisions violate(1) the 'Wegorical app~vaclu"baditiomUy~ toapply olhane01lent lans;(2) PIWI Amendment due p m and SMI Ameodmcnt juiytrial rigl~fs,(3) Fundamental hm of p~oeedural due p m ;(4) Sep-dtion of Porms Doctrine of Mcle I of the CoRFwuti011; mtl(5) Patr na~htg quimment of the Due Rwes clause.The three ree~cl-all provisions and the~r stahltoly context nre similarACCAThe XU increases the sfatutoly rn%\iru11u1 sentence from 10 years to life,with a rnandato~y nunimu~m 15 yeas, for a felon convicted of possessing afiream in ~olation of 8 922(g)(l) with three quxalir,iug pnor wo~ictionsfor a 'Wolent felony" or "seriou~s tl111g offense."2The ACW "violent felony" inch~des any fclony that otberluise i18uoI~8~condnct that presents a senous potential risk of physical mjmy to mother.I8 U.S.C. 9 924(e) (2) (B) (ii) (emplusis added).IntroductionTitle18, US. Codc, hke evely penal code, conlains laus tht use priorconvictions to enhance statutory rnaumum~ senta~ce% T~xditionaUy,such laws specify t11e prior offenses that trigger tlleir application.Ilowe\n; se\.eidlaus in Title 18 do not. Til~ic scope depends on ivlbat I u,ill call,for lack of a bettor term, "catcil-dl" provrsions.Aggravated felonySec. 1326(b) (2) of 'Iitle 8, US. Code, increases the statuto~y n~axirnutrn selltenccfrom trvo to 20 yeas for an alien convicted of illegal reently afterremod with a prior conviction for an "agpmted feloliy" as dehed nt 8U.S.C. 9 llOl(a)(43) md 18 U.S.C. 5 16.3 Sec. 16 isT1tle 18's "crime ofviolence," wluh is iocmpo~;lted by 8 1101(a) (43) (F).For aliens co~~vicled of illpl reenhy, "awavilted lelo~i)~' includesflly other offense tl~at is a fclony md Illat by 11s nahure,i~~clElw a substantla1 risk tl~at physical force a@inst the personor properly of mother may be used in the collrse of conlmilti~~gthe offense. 18 U.S.C 5 16(b) (emplmsis added).12 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE W.TCDLA.COM SEPlEMBER 2001

of the law and a substantial risk of improper plgsical force"); U~~itedSfates TIE aggravated felony catch-all approach is in the second ltalf 16, Titleu. Hail, 77 E3d 398, 401 (11th Cir. 1996)(reversed on otl~ergrouads)("Carq~~g a co~~cealecl weapon is contluct tl~at poses a serious18's "crhe of \iolence." Sec. 16(b), il~rougl~ $1101(a) (43) (F), providesthat aggravated felony u~cludcs,potential risk of -. phvsicd iniu~~f'). . .~Fudbel; the courts decide by taking judicial notice that risk of use of auy other offense tl~al is a felony aud Il~at, by its ilalure,force is inl~erent in ceutfi~ offenses, in the absence of legislatio~~ a d ju~yfiudings. For exan~ple, in a case where the da~~gerousuess of DWI w\m atissue the court simply declared: "Cau~acho's assertion is not persoasi~~cirtuol~w a subslautial risk tl~at pllysicd force ag~~stthe personor property of mother may be used in the course of comuuttingthe offense (euphxsis added).given the fede~l courts' recognitio~~ of tile substautial ~isk that force maybe used by dn~k dri~~ers.'~Co~~?flc/~o-iIIc~rroq~~i~~u. LIW, 188 E3d 649,652 (5111 Cil: 1999, ~riithclrn~~n at 222 E3d 1040 (2000)(because the alienwithdrew lus appeal to end his LNS. custody). ale court took judicialAgain, there is a clear cont~xst. The offenses approach requires specifiedcrimes. The elen~cnts approacl~ requires specific acts "as an elen~eul."The catcll-all applies to "any other offense" that, in a court's oph~im~,notice that DW involved tl~e iu11erent risk set out in 16(11) and was there- "involves" the risk of use of force against persons or property Sec. i6(b)fore w~ agg~xwted felony if classified % a felony (More receutly the Fifh does not require hat the snbstantial risk ofuse offorce be an element of ll~eCircuit reversed itself in UnitedStntes u. Cbapn-Garza, 243 E3d 912 (5111 prior offe~~se.Ck. 2001).Tl~e "three strikes" law si~uilarly includes (1) e~mmeraterl offenses in 5Ca111acho-~1fa~1wg,ti1t relied 011 a Fourth r\lreudment sobriety check- 3559(c)(2) generally, (2) enumerated acts "as an element" in 3poult case,ilficl,igr~r StatePolice u. Sits 110 S.Ct. 2481 (1990). (eu~pl~a- 3559(c) (2) (F) (ii), and (5) a catch-dl provision. The catc11-aU providessis added). Sifz, in hull, 11i1d relied on higl~\vay traftic silfety statistics ~II that a serio~~s violent felony" includessupport of a rnhg that sobriety checkpoints are reasonable under theFonrlll Anieudment. (!is is expl~~ed beloxv, courts properly rely on tl~eir alrj' other offe,tse punish:~ble by a N ~~IIIII~I term of irnprisseuscof "lcgislativc facts" \\.11en resol\ing constitutio~~al issues, e.g,ihe o~in~ent of 10 yenrrs ... tlut, by its nahlre, it~liolucs a substantialFourtl~ Ameudn~cut inue in Silz, eveu tl1o11g11 rlw "facts" n~aybe iucorrecl.) risk that physical force against the person of anotl~er III;~)' beThe sln~ctsre aud coutent of tile AKA, agg~xvated felony, and "time used in the course of commitliug the offense.$strikes" enhancen~ent la\isaIso revmlthat the catch-all provisions are bsed 3559(c) (2) (F) (ii) (en~pl~asis added).on jurlicial fact finding. The scope of dl three enl~aucement laws is definedby a three-pronged approach that includes, with respect to prior convictious:i\gain, the catch-pro\Ldon applies potentidly to "any other offeuse," alldquires no elements.(I) e~~uu~entetl offenses,(2) enwerated eleu~ents, and(3) tl~e catcll-all pro.ovisions Illat opente iudepe~~deutly of eleu~ents.The ,\CU dc6nes "violent felouy," at 8 924(c) (2) (8). TheKCYs ~IIII-Why elements are necessaryThe scope of the (I) offense and (2) elements approacl~es can be ascertainedas a matter of la\\. because they rely on elements. Substantive crimimentedoffenses, sucll as burglay and anon, are in $ 924(e) (2)(B)(ii). nal la\vs also use elen~ents to dehe the accused's prior offense. The sen-The en~~merated ele~uents are in 3 924(e)(Z)(B)(I), wvl~ich provides that a teucing court simply compares elen~euts--111ose of the defendant's prior"violent felony" u~chdes auy felony that "bas as an eier~~ec~f the use,attemped use, or tl~reateued use of pl~jsical force agnu~st the person ofa~otl~er." (e~uplwsis added).The ,KWs "catch-dl" iacludes aug felony offense that "otber~uiseofknse of conviction and those required by the enl~ancen~eni la\\:Reliare ou elen~ents means the offense md eleu~ent approaches can beapplied to prior offeuses based on a fiudiug of o~dy om fact, the 111ere existeuceof ll~e couviclion. The elen~ents of the prior offense are already resir~rnl~~w contl~~ct Illat presents a serious potential risk of physical iuju~y to ji~clicatcr, Iiaviug been adjudicated before a july or judge in the pior promothel;"5 924(e) (2) (B) (ii)(empl~asis added) ).ceeding. OIICC the fact of conviction is found, the sentencing coust callThe co~~trast beheeu the offense and elements approaches on the onehm~d, a11d catc11- all approach on the other, is clm The elements approachreql~ires that the prior offeuse 11ave specified acts "1s an element." Offensesalso are ~ IOU~II md dehed by tl~eir elements. See ?iylor u. U~iitedStcttes,110 S.CI. 2143 (1990)(debning the KWs "burglaqc by slatiug its elements).The tern1 "othenvisc involves conduct" in the catch-dl provisionshows Caugress did not it~tend that the "serious pota~tid risk of pl~ysicalinjury to anotl~er" be an elen~eut of the prior oUense. Hence, courts applythis risk-based test regardless of the prior offense's elemeats, as ia iIfott&detcruune as a matter of law whether the prior offense's adjudicated elcmembring it dtl~in the scope of the relevant enhaucen~ent law.it may be difficult at times to determine the elements of the prior offe~~scor the elc~~ients the enhancement law requires, but the traditional analysisis based on ele~nents of offenses in substa~~tiw pend la\vs. See, eg, Tqhru. U~tifedSlates, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (1990) (defuung "burgla~y" for i\CU purposesand ren~m~ding for deternunation of wl~etl~er the defendant's priorco~~viction hcludetl those elements).In contrast, the catch-dlprovisious treat tile prior offense's xljudicatetlGaiim-Ro~/rig~ter, Hnll, ele., above.eleu~eo(s as evidence born \d~ich the seuteucing court may find whether itTl~e "a~~l;?wtetl felon)" definitiouis st 8 U.S.C. 5 llOl(a)(43). Its enu- also "inmlves" all uhercnt risk of use of force or injury to pelsous or propmeratedoffenses approach is iu 8 U.S.C. S 1101(a) (43) geuerall~ wl~ichlists rloze~~s of offe~~ses, either by their generic nmnes or statotoq referellces.The elen~ents approach is at 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), which subpara. 31101(a) (43)(F) incorpo~xtes by reference. (Sec. § 16 contains Title 18'sdefinitiou for the icr~u of art "crime of violence.") Sec. 16b) includes "anoffense Illat 11as as n11 e1e11101zf the use, alteu~pted use, or tllreateaed use ofphysical force against the pelson or property of nnothee" (eu~pl~asisadded).erty Stat~ttory law does 1101 pro~ide tile nlswer, because they describeoffeuses by their elen~ents, not by tl~cir othe~wise u~~determinetl and unrlesirablenahlre. Crfmes may or may not include risks, substantial or n~~uscule,of injury, use of force, disease, lin;u~cid loss, embarnssment, etc., butnot as a matter of stahltoly law.The ondesirable, bat unlegislatecl, "nature" of crimes relates to so-cded"legislatire facts." These are the perceptions, true or fdse, of la~~n~ake~sand policy~~akers. SeeFed.R.Evid 201, JudicialXolice of Adjudicative Facts,24 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE ~.TCDLA.COM SEPTEMBER ZOO1

(3) The catell-all provisions require violate Due Process and jurytrial rightsTqhr adopted a categorical approach for federal sentence eal~ancementbecause of the "potential unfai111ess of a factual approacl~." Id Thecoust posed a h)pothetical constitutional question:dence aid to be informed of the evidence being considered against ill en^.illorrissej~ u. Brerrw; 92 S.CI. 2593 (1972) (parolees); Gngrroir u.Sca~pelii, 93 S.Ct. 1756 (1973)(prabation revocation I~eari~gs). See olso,illr~llmq u. IVilhro> 95 S.Ct. 1881 (1975)(intproper for the law lo sluftburden of proof and presume xi elen~ent).Title 18 U.S.C. § 3661, wl1ic11 provides, "No limitation shall be placedIf the se~~te~ici~~g court were to conclude, from ib own reviewof the record, that the defendant actually co~~~nlined a genericburgJaty [even if he was not convicted of one], could thedefendant challenge this co~~clusio~~ as abridging his right to ajuly trid?at 2160.on the inforn~ation concerning the. .. conduct of apel-son co~~victed," dealswit11 discretion to unpose a sentence within predetermined statuto~y lin~its.It does not elllpon7er courts to illcrase a statutoly IIILX~IIIIIN sentence, atleast sinceilpprw~~di, srqro.Eve11 before Apprendi, and even under the Guidelines, a defel~da~~t 11%procedurxl safegoards duriog the fact-finding shges of proceedings ag;~instAppre~~cli u. 1\~eu1Jersq1, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000) answered Toylor's hpotlieticalquestion in tl~c affi~uative. In Appret~di, the Supreme Court heldthat a New Je~scy hate crime la\\, that enliances a shh~to~y III~W~IIIUIII selltencebased on ixcial ~notive of the defendant may not be a "sentencing hctor"for the sentencing judge to decide. Apprei~di relied decisively on cotlhim.See U.S.S.G. 6A1.3 and its con~me~rta~y The gover~~me~~t lias the b1wden ofproof to enhance a sentence. 'I'llis implies evidence of some indiciaof reliability Id Evidence of uncertain origin and reliabilily may not be considered.A trait conlmon to cases expanding the catch-all provisioos to non-viastitutioddue process and jury trkal ri$ts. Motive must be alleged is the lent priors is that courts found the prior offenses categorically ii~\~olved theindictment, proved to Ll~e jury, and proved with coe~petent evidence beyonda rmonable doubt. The Supreme Court held decisively and unambiguously011 constitutional grounds that:required risk in ~JI evidentiaiy ~~acuum. illorrdy, GnItio~~-Rodrig~re~,Cn~~~ocho-~lla~roqt~i~~, Hal[ and Fortes, to llanle a fe\r: found that escape,joyiding, D\W, possessio~~ of a firearm, and can)ing a wapoe inl~erentlyinvolved the required degree and lype of risk without hearkig a n~itness orOther tllan the fact of a conviction, aiy fact that increases thependty of a crime beyond the prescribed Stahltoly III~IIIIIIImust be submitted to tl~ejuiy antl proved beyond a rmsonabledoubt, at 2361.rading an cxbibit.111 several fedecd proseci~tior~s in El Paso, Texw, the government aUegcdthat felony D\VI is XI agsavated felon): The defense argued that the govenmeut n~ust present some e~idence to prove that D\YI invol\w a "substantialrisk of p11)sicalforceagdnst othe~s" to fall witbin 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).Athongl~ Apredi involved a fact alleged ~II the CII~~GIII offense of conviction,the lmguage of its holding does not eschde facts involved inprioroffenses. "hiy fact," other than the nwe existence of a convictioa, must betreated as an ele~ue~~t of the offense, if it increases the shtuto~y nlxxinumsentence. Due process, burden of proof, juty trial, and the right to indictmentfor federal felonies, are individual protections that screen all fact allegationsbefore tllose dlegatio~is can be used to increase a statuto~y punisll-The sme argugumeots call be made with sespect to escape, possession of\r8eapotis, UUbIV, etc. The governmellt will likely Iwe no evidence.The Fifth Circuit lmd stated in other cases tl~at "substantial risk nlealis"strong probability." United Stotes 11. Golm~r-Rodrig~rez, 169 E3d 217.Another circuit had speculated about the required probability being 30% orlo%, but wisely didn't pin itself do\w wit11 a f~ction. Oirlterl Sfotes nRrltherford,, 54 E3d at 376 (7th Cil: 1996) (inte~preting the "career offendnwtrange.er" "crime of violence" catch-all)Apprordi afinls thai the constitution requires strict adherence to the Of come, the ove~vl~elniiog niajority of D\Vl offenses result in no accicategoricalapproach to appl)i~ig enhancen~ent laws, as lhj'lor suggestetl.l@lor andlIpprerrdi, read together, luean tliat the sentencing court may notrely on facb outside the jury's findings in the prior co~wiction to incrase astatutory masilllum sentence except to End the existerm of the convictionitself. The COIII~I~I~reference pou~ls are ekeients. Hecause T$j,lor requirestllat courts compare ele~l~e~~ts with elements, antl because App~wrl holdsthat due process requires jury scmtiay of all fact issues, courts cannot applythese catcll-all provisions unless they include as ele~~rerrts the punisl~ed substantialor serious potential risk of inju~y or physical force.Defendants with prior conrictions for escape, felo~~y D\V, possession ofa s:t\\.ed-off sllotgun, unauthorized use of a veliicle, etc., never 11ad tl~echance to present theissue of risk of injuly or use of force to a ju~y becauseit was no legislahre had made it an element. Thy were II~Wcharged inthe mrlier prosecution nit11 Iiaving con~niittetl 1 crime with the elementsdents and no use of force. Altl~ougl~ the gowrrn~~ent offered no evidence,tl~e defense retained a o:ltionally recognized expert ill the field of national11igllway traEc safety to critique the "facts" and "analysis" in Co~rrochoilln,loyrri~r,sr@r(r., and by reference, the case 011 wvluch it relied, illichign~rStrrte Police u. Sit& 110 S.0. 2481 (199O)(a 1;ourlh A~nendsent sobrietycl~eckpoint case). The statistician stated by aftitlavit that the probability admnk driver may cause an accident is a hartion of a percent and pointedout the appalling nlisuse of statistics ie C(r~~~~~cho-~Ilorroq~rirr and, by reference,Sitz.5Of course, procedunl due process contemplates 11eari11gs owdisputedo@rdicatir:e facts, suc11 as wl~ether the defenda~~t conioiitted clia~ged acts.It does not contemplate evidentia~y hewings over legislative facts leading tocreation of rules of la\+: This leads to the next argp~enl, the separation ofpo\\ns problen~,SIICII as (1) "subsmntial risk" of (2) "use of force" (3) "against anotl~ec"5. The catcll-all provisions violate the Separation of Powers4. Catch-all provisions that allo~v fact finding wit110ut evidence or Doctrinean evidentiary hearing violate fi~ndaaicntal fairnesshticle I, 5 1, of the Constitution vests aU legislative powers in Congress.Pift11 ib~~eudo~ent procetlural due process requires fuodmental himess. Tile Suprene Court iias held tl~at under the separation of powas doctrineEven if courts had the ca~~stitutional power to hue se~~tence enhance~i~e~its only Congress n~ay enact laws. "Is our s)steai, so far at le;~as concernson judicial fact fi~ding, they cannot nuke tl~ose G~dingsiu~ply by judicialnotice, in~posing their subjective beliefs, witl~out e\'idence. Even probationers;mtlparolees are entitled to an evidentia~y hearing, a light topresent evthefederd povee, defining crimes md Gsing penalties are legislative, notjudicld hu~ctiol~s." United Stoles 11. Eums, 333 U.S. 483, 486 (1948)(refusing to enforces l~opelesslya~~~biguo~~s sclltencing law). An important26 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE w-TCDLA.COM SEPTEMBER 2001

pxt of the sepasation of po\~,ers doctrine is the nowdelegation doctrineXistrett(r u UiiitetlSt(h, 488 U.S. 361, 371 (1989). It lilnits the authorityof Congress to delegate 1a\\~111aking powem to the otl~er two bbraches,There is no Supre~ne Court precedent tl~at Co~~gress n~ap delegate to court.rthe power to determine marin~uo~ statalo~y semences.The catch-dl provisions at 9 924(e)(20(B)(ii), S 3559(c)(2)(P)(ii),and S 16(b), ll1ro11g11 8 U.S.C. 3 1101(a)(43)(F), ~iolate Article I and theseix~ration of powers doctrine because they delegate to co~~rts the power todecide wI1ic11 offenses are "violent," "nggrmnted," or "serious viole~~t"felonies based on the courts' assessme~~t of risk.Congress inserted these catch-all provisions because it apparently felt tothe lists of emm~erated prior offenses and elen~ents were incomplete. Itoffered judges tlle opportunity to fill gaps that Congress had left in the la\\'A court decision that a given offense, suc11 as felony D\ST, cntegoricnI/Jq~~alifies as a "crime of violeacc" under 3 16(b), and is t1111s an ;~ggravatedfelony under 9 1101(a)(43)(F), is not an act of Congress signed by thePresident. Ho\vc\~c~; such a ruling\vo~~ld have he same effect as if Congrcss11ad included D\Vl among the enumerated offenses in 3 l101(a) (43). Itcreates a new role of 1:1y eqaimlcnt to st~~t~~to~ylaw, but enacted by courtsnfter tbc fnct without politic;~l accountability (or ju1-j scrutiny of fact :~llegations).Stated in otl~er tenrs, to decide that an offense qodifies as a predicateoffense, the court must find that it inherently involves the required risk 01~II~III~ or use of force against anotl~er duri~~g its conln~ission, and then conxrtthe finding of that risk into :I constn~ctive "elen~ent," even thou@ tl~elegislature did not inake it an element.There is only one case,~llisfrelfn, inwliu~g 1egislatir.e pawn delegatedto an entit). of the judicial Ibraoch. itlisfrettrr approved of the delegation ofpower to pro~rolg;~teguideli~~es to the U S Semncing Con~nussio~~ becausethe Sentencing Reform Act: (I) included derailed "intelligil~le principles,"('2) limited 1xl11er tl~an capandetl judicial discretion, (3) did not increasestatotol). masimum sente~~ces, and (4) separated judges' Iaaamking andatljudicaliee duties. dlistwttn, 488 U.S. at 375, 395, 404.Tile c:dc11-all provisions fail all four of tl~ese tests. Tl~e catch-all pro+sions offer little by way of "intelligible principles" for the cams to foUow.Tl~ey offer no gr~idance as to w11at probability of occurrence constit~~tes asubslanti:d or serious potentid risk. They increase judicid discretion. Theyincrease stahltol). inmimum sentences.They do not tell courts hero to reach their decisions. if co~~rt findingsare to be based on reliable e\zidence offered by litigants about the type nnddegree of risk, then the coorts' decisions, that is, the l :~,\\\ill turn on thepxties' evidence mtlw tlm public policy F11rt11el; i~~cor~sistent viei~s ontl~eir scope n~igl~t be affirmed on :ippmI 1111(ler a "clearly erroneous" standardof re\'ien! In tlme circunlstances, here mo~~ld be little or 110 unifor-~rit)!Even if Congress intended that courts would decide the scope of tllesesmtutol). sentelm ei~l~;u~cen~ents based on subjective beliefs or j~~dicialnotice, the district and circuit courts nugl~t stiU disagree. Usifornut): in thefinal aodysis, might com on$' fro111 St~pren~e Co~~rt rerieu:Co~lgress recognized that the Sente~~cing Commissio~~ woold niakepoli-CJ decisions. To have some political accoontabili& its n~enhers are na~uetlforlwo~s of yews. 28 U.S.C. 9 992. The Se~~tencing Comn~ission is cli~po~eredto l~oltl hearings on and staffed to ~t~dypoliq, issues related to crinli-11x1 selltenciog. 28 U.S.C. $8 991, 994-995. The Commissio~~ must publisl~its proposals before the becon~e la! 28 U.S.C. 3 994(q). The proposal issobjected to public and political co~mne~~t, and a possible Congressio~ialveto. fd111 contrast, public and political influence do not enter into the adjudicativeprocess. Judges have life tem~re to insulate them from public andpolitical pressures. Courts are equipped to adjudicate, to resolve issues ona case-by-case basis, not to decide sentencing policy, A court's decision isnecessarily "after the fact."W11:rll~ the judge who imposes the e1111anced sentence ~~nder a catcll-allprovision simultaneonsly decides the scope of the enl~a~~cement la\\: "[Tll~eConstitulion, at least as ape, se matter, does not forbid juilges to wear hvohats; it merely forbids tl~en~ to wear both hats at tile same li~~~e."~llistrettn,488 U.S. at 404.P;lrt of the co~lh~sion created by tl~ese caklt-aU provisions stems fromthe nahlre of the fact issue they present. They pose a question that is by itsllature one of "legislative fact," as contrasted wit11 adjudicative facts thatcourts tratlitionally find. As the Rules Ad~iso~y Co~~~mittee eaplahe

statistics. The statistics cited in Sitz about the costs of DWI were n~isonderstoodmd misapplied from a hid evidence poiut of view, and tvould probablynot be admissible as scientific or expert evidence to prove an adjudicativefact. See, eg, Ua116ert u, dIerreIDo~uPhc~r~t~ncet~ticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct.2786 (1993); I;rrj~?m Tirw Co. u. Cart11ichne~ 119 S.Ct 1167 (1999). Thefindings in ilIoitdJ: Gnluan-Rodrigtie4 and Fortes are also unsupported byevidence.Na~~!ikins wd Sitz are distinguishable because cou~ls liax the constitutiondpower to write evidence law and Fourth Amendment collstihltiondlaw ~11nrb111:~~ u. ~llrdisoo, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (the courts, not Congress,liave the find say on constitutional issues). Wen coum do 11ave the po~wto make law, tl~ey may rely 011 poiicy preferences, judicial pl~ilosophy, or"legislative facts," wvl~ich tl~ey nmy &id either by judicial notice or by weighingevidence offered by parties.Under our Constitution, however, judges do hot write statuto~y criminallaw. Tlme is no precedent for the notion that a court can rely on fit~clingsof facts, be they adjudicative or legislative, to fill ill gaps in a criminal stahlteas they did in 111011iij: Gnl~!nir-KotIrigt~ex, and Fortes, to nlention a fmucases.There is no precedent for judicial relimce on balancing tests or hd-ings offrrcts to intellwet thewords of cruuinal stah~tes enacted by Coiigress,especially one that iucreases the shh~to~y nlaximun~ sentence fro111 2 to 20yeas or 10 to life without parole. The power to define "violent felon):""agg~mvated felony," and "serious violent felon)+' belongs to Congress, notthe courts. Congress ,nay not delegate hat power to courts.6. Tile catcli-all provisions violate the Fifth hncndtrent's fairwanling requirementsDue Process requires that cruuioal stahltes give fair u%rtung. UnitedStcites 11. huiet; 520 US. 259,266 (1997). Vagw statutes do not meet thisrequirement. The vagueness doctrine ba~s courts from enforcu~g a smtewritten so Illat "n~en of colntroa illtellige~ice nwst tiecessarily guess at itsthe otheis might Iia\,e no scienter reqoirenient either. Congress's definitiol~ofagglmvated felony does liot nlentio~~ D\R. Section 16(b) is based on afactual messe~cnt of the degree and nature of risk ullhercnt in any crin~e,so long as it is a felony.The degree of risk hherent in ma~y crimes is unlu~onn HistoricaU~what is the statistical pmb.nIrility that an escape will explode into violence,meaning and differ as to its application[.]" COIIII~!J, u. Get~erfll or that ajoyriderudl flee at high speed, that afelonyD\VIuill result in injuqCo~tstlrictiotr Co., 269 US. 385,391 (1926). Tlle doctri~~e applies wl~ether to anoti~er? If anyone lu~ous, it uould be a specialist in an obscure area ofa law's uncertainly relates to the crirue or, as in illis case, the punisl~~~~ent sti~dy, not the geneid public. The "nature" and "dsW of D\VI, for example,u~l~icli a~ay be imposed. SeeE~,cim, 333 U.S. at 495 (refusing to enforce a are enlotio~rauy charged questiolls. Nevertheless,law punishing alien Larboring); see also LaPa\ze & Scott, Substanti\,eCriminal La!\', § 2.3($, at 127 (cit~tions omitted). "[Nlo one n~ay berequired at peril of life, libert): or propery to speculate as to the limningof penal statutes." hazett~ u. i\'e~i~Jersej; 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939); seealso Cicp of Chicago u. Norales, 527 US 41 (1999) (vagrmcy law toowgue).The need for fdr war~dog of what the law requires is inextricably hikedto legislative po\ven. Dltrier: 520 U.S. at 265.The fair uTarnilig requirement also reflects the deference dueto tile kgi~hhlre, wluch possesses the power to define crimesand their ponisl~niei~the treated as. . . . [Clonduct n~ynotcrininal r~niess it lias bee11 so defined by [a collipetent]authority . . . before it has taken place ... .520 U.S. at 265 11.5(citations omitted)[n]ueprocess bars courtsfro~ti appl}%ig ai~ovel coosructionof a criminal stahlte to conduct that neither the skltutenor anyprior judicial decisio~~ has fairly disclosed to be within itsscope. I(/. at 266 (siniilar to the way the i3 Post F~tcto Clausebars retroactive application of stahltes).The catch-all provisioas are similar to the la\\. at issue in Lnnier in thatneither describes what specific conduct it forbids. ~riier dealt wit11 18U.S.C. 3 242, that ge~~eially prohibits "the dep~jvation of any rights . . .secured .. . by the Constihitioll." hior espl~ied that "the touchstone iswhether the statute, staiding aloue or as construed, made it reasonablyclear at the releva~itime that the defentluit's conduct was cri~~d."520U.S. at 267. In knier the issue WNS whether a defcndar~t could knowwhether his conduct deprived others of rights secured by the Collstihttion.Here, the issne is whether a defendant could h~o~vu~hether his prior o[fenseinvolves the unlegislated and unadjodicated risk punished by the enha~lcementIw:These provisions are similar to a law criminaliziig abo~lions, that theSupreme Coi~rt stivck dow 011 vaguelms grounds in Colnrrffi u Frnnklin,439 U.S. 379, 390-91 (1979). That law cvi~nidized abortions "if there issufficient reason to believe that the feh~s may be viable." The court ruledthat tlie\

ironic unconslitulionid sense.)Rather, the first issue ll~ust be fwwd 111 terms of the language of the rele~antcatcll-all provision Does a given offense, for example, escape, unauthorizeduse of a vehicle. D\\T, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, or statato17rape, i~ivolve categorically (buy its nature) a subsr;mtial risk of inju~y toor use of force against mother?Once the issue is properly pl~msetl, defel~se co~lnsel call 11). to throw thccatcll-22 back into the judge's court (pardon the pun), starting wit11 a conlpoundquestion:"Your Honol; is this a question of la\\. or a qwstioa of fact. Ifit is a q~~estion of la\\,, then on \\>hat statute do yo11 rely for yourmwcr?, and if it is a questiol~ of fact, on wl'llat evidence do yourely? My client and I are entitled to know so me can respond."This might ldp the courts to clarify their thinking, on the record, andco~lfronthe consfit~~tio~~al issues. (The sanle q~~estionligl~t be posedrlletorically to the prosecution.)Tl~e judge \\ill Likely be unable to cite a statute that states in so nlanywords, for example, "Escape in\&es a serious potential risk of injuly toatlotha;" tllus making it an ACG\violcnt felony Nor can tllc judge cite "e\idence"in the record supporting that proposition, alfhougl~ tile go\'ernments~~pposedly heals the hden of proof at sentencing. Counsei may need toremind the court tllat it cannot take judicial notice of disputed facts. Insiston no evi~lcntiary hearing.lnsisti~~g on an e\identialy hearing on the prior offense's supposed"id~erent daogerousncss" selves to remind the court that the go\zerneenthas he burden of proof and that the defendant 111s procedural rigllts. In theprocess, if the court seriously considels the reqtlest, it may soon realize thatthe answer to the fact question leads to a ntling of law and more probles~s.Coo~~sel nlusl idso point out to the court tile tlislinction between anotie~lse's elelllents ;1nd its "nnhlre." The crime's elen~ents are set out in Ian7.It's "n:lt~~rc" is not. ,\ crime's '"naturp" is the subject of perpelual publicdebate and disagreelnent, or presumptio~ls and prejudice. Tl~ese are "legislativefacts," the percel~tions on which lawrakers may rely, but not hefacts upon which sentence enl~ancen~cnt I:I\T~S m:ty relyTlus leads to llle find distinction counsel sl~ould nuke to the coort, theone beh!'een "adjudicative facts" and "legislative facts." \Yiilh respect lostahltol). sentence enhancenlents, courts esist to enable juies to decide disputedadjudicative facts Fimling legiskitive facts is up to Congress. Thejudge l~as no power to find eitherI. See, e l rl~e "career offender" Sel~tencing Guideline(G11ideline4Bl.2), (3) the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. 3 3142(1),3156(a) (4)), (2) use of ;l firearm UI connection with a "crime of violence,"18 U.S.C. $ 924(c)(3), and (3) 18 U.S.C. $9 1952(a)(2), 1959(a), wluc11incorporate the "crime of violence" at 18 U.S.C. $ 16 for substantive antiracketeeringla\\'s. None are applied or expressed in terms of "elenients" todefine potential offenses. The career offender guirleline does not affectstatutoq III;LY~IIILIIII senteoces. Tl~c bail provision affects \\bee u~~prisotinlcntbegins, not ho\v long it will be. Tl~ collstihltiollafilg of rlle otller h\ciprovisions is at le:N as problenlatic because they form part of the substantivecriminal Ian:2. The AC&\ am fist e~~:~ctetl in 1986 as part of the "Rrmnn Owner'sProtection Act, Pnb.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, 458-59. In its original fornlonly robbeq and bmgla~y convictions qoalified for enbancement. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act o 1986, Title I, Subtitle I, 1401, 100 Stat. 3207-39 to3207-40, expanded it by replacing burglaly and robbe17 \rith the lernls"serious hug offense" and "\violent felony," and including the catch-dl"otllenvise inrolws conduct tint presents a serious potential risk of pl~ysicalinju~y to another" as a test for "!iolent felony"3. The aggravated felonyreferred to in 8 U.S.C. $1326, illegal reenfly bedeported &en, got its first "catch-all" provision from the lnunigntioll Actof 1990, hb.L 101.649, 8 501, 104, Stat. 5048. The IUegalIn~~nigrationReform and ln~nugrant Kesponsibilily i\ct of 1996 expanded it by loweringthe qua&ing tl~resl~old of the prior sentence of u~~prisonn~ent (suspendedor executed) kon~ five years to one. Pub.1. 104-208, Di!: C, $ 321, 101 SWt.3009-627.4. See, e.8 UnitedStfltes 11. Chnp~t-Gflrzfl, slip. op. 99-51199, 5th Cir.,Marc11 1, 2001 (ruling thz~t 18 U.S.C. 3 l6(b) requires risk of intentional,uot accitlental use of force so that felony D\Y11 is not iw ~ ~~?l~fl~edfe/~~see olso Bnilq' u. United Stoles, 551 U.S 137 (1995)("aseH nleans "toemplo): to avail oneself of, and to can)' out a purpose or action by 111eansof'); Random House Unabridged Dictional). 2097 (2d ed. 1993)'(usemeans "to en~ploy for sonle puqose"); \Y'ebster's New Collegiate Dictional)'21, 449 (1977)("forcen includes "vioIelae,co~~~pulsiotl, or constmintexerted upon or against a person or tiling," and "against" means "in oppositionor hostility to").5. 111 lus affida\it (the court did not hold an evidentia~y hewing), DLZador explained that the 25,000 death figure was out-of-date, misleading,misunde~stood, and misapplied The datum is 20 pars old, w11en DW7 wasmore conmon. It includes accidents in wvluch t11c drinking person \vas nota driver and where the blood alcol~olevel (BAC) was as low as .01% (not.08 or ,176). At BAC levels far below .08 :~lcoI~oll~ns little or no effect onmotor skills or perceptions, and wil likely not 11;we "caused" the accirlenteven if the personvl~o dr;mkwas the drivel: hrthel; even if the driwr (1)nvs dri~jking, (2) caused the accident, md (3) alcol~ol ~vas a prosinlatecause, 69% of D\Vl fatalities are tl~e drinking drivers thelnselves. Thesetragedies are not use of force :lgainst "others." In calculating the "risk," thecourt not only inflated the IIIIIII~KI~O~, it completely forgot the de~lon~inatol:There are an estinwted 800,000,000 episodes of drinking ind dri\ringannu-~lly in the countl): i\s niany as 100,000,000 exceed legal Bt\C linuts.111 sum, he explained that the probability a drunk driver will accidentallyl~arm another is a fraction of a percent, far fmrn tlle 10% to 30%R~ifherford ~n~entionetl.6. Sitz took the datum from 4 1.akwe & Scott, Search and Sein~re: aTreatise on the Po~irth he~~dele~rt, $ 10.8, p. 71 (2d ed. 1987). 1.a Favetook it from 71 Georgetowl LJ. 1457 11. 1 (1983). The law jojolln~al footnotecites H.R. Rep. No. 867, 971'1 Cong., 2d sess. 7, reprinted bl 1982 U.S.Cong. & Mn~in, New 3367, a report related lo a proposed Alcohol TrafiicSafely - Nation:~l Driver Register Act of 1982. The House report's source isulllulo\\~ll.SEPTEMBER ZOO1 VPNW.TCDLP.COM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 29

TCDlXs own B.G. "Gerry" Murris has been elected to swr ;w a boardn~embm of the National AsYocialion of Wnal Defense Jayrs. rkxy isthe current Chair of (he r*iminal 1)cfenx lauyrs Profed and a PA+Andrca &a Yaus is chgd with murdering her five childrm. The llatrlsinte&ted in contributing to hcr drfense, &ax hake ywr cltecks pa)de tothe "Andrea ilia Yatps Uefcnse Fund". Sund the cltecks lu:If (he hi receives more money than is nccded for Yatn' defense, the excwwill be donated to cams for women's o~entalterlth Ism, pnrticularly post-MkIk wd Rick Hagea we pleased to annuunce the arriml uf the son,Willl;utl Jackson llaxeu. Billy Ja& was horn Jtutc 30,2001. He weighed 7Scott II. Usman IUI~his wife Hather proudly mwnce the birth uf theirdnughtcr, Kenddl (;race OS~IPI, born on July 28,2001.'[he Tans Ddender Seniw ean provide w imce to mp4l;tl attorncp at tltctrial and posr cuubiclion Mages. Juhn Niland XI TIAS is edl~%iinp, the lcs(i-proieutot. and tbeo SS Wofthe ~ ~ division, ~ hiag @ this e tltlrekeaMIsWI Roland Qabb in wing th P&d Rtbh Defender's o$oeWWBhnsaa hi$ w@ed hcr pdeumRrs~v~~PcnUteWnW Mme Lamera hwm. TGBU app%ts bh JJdl1190n5efbrt$arrd ilrem& aMd all* hof teRmas lkeat\iyP InreCro4 qe-Wth Mrneolbed~b T G ~ Itb A Iiimbmd ~ ~ mmbumwtoTCD~A. hkve~.thelras, hla ~ol&nn Itas decided lo seek opporlunilies elwwhere.TWIA wishes her the best in her h~turend~xtvors.De:,ynseH4@g! Produced by Fireroads Productions, .s z.._Tcuas 77259, for he wnsm~ctiun uf the Family Yisitors' Cater. It will servefamily nternkrs ad frielvls coming to visit iltuse incarcerated.Rubwt 1). H~lnett i.ciouted to a new omce locatid at 102 Ruffdo Strwt,on the Coutlhouse square, in Gilmcr, Texas und llas hiiwl a new mlate,

Yoo know about our trai~kig programs. lbu know about the I'oice fo, theDefi/?see.You ~IIOTV about our legislative efforts. But, do yo11 know about the group rates forlong tlistance, credit card processing, a11d malpractice insurance? tkcording to ourrecent solvey, less than half of tl~c luembers who responded ~IIOIV about tliese perks. Because itis one of our goals to provide tangible lnembersl~ip benefits, me are now actively seeking newopportunities for group discounts. As tiew ~dationsl~ips are establisl~etl with ~~e~~doss, we willupdate a "Meo~bership Perks" section in the I'oice mi at TCDI.A.com. As it corrently stands,the following ventlo~s have made discount offers to TCDM lmembers.LegalEdge Case Management Software is offering a groop rateto our members based upon the nu~uber of people purchasing. Tl~company will also person-:dize the system to include the names, addresses, telepl~oone numbers, and other biograplucalinformation of every Judge, Court and investigating agency in the State of Texas for the database.Cnll Semr Kom~dorski 610-975-5888 s 214.-Loislaw is offer"1g a 10% discount to our members.Call Cirrr!)) lVi/linrrrs ot 1-877-471-5634 .~2470.R & R Bookstore in Sao Antonio is offaing a "match or beat" the lo\vest price onall legal materials. It will not charge for sllippi~~g and 11as EVERl'legal publication inlaginable.C d Robert Dof~nIdsor~ nI210-225-1107.Bestline long tlistancc senice is offering a flat 8C per nlirrute for intra and interstate caUingto ow members. There is no inootlfly fee, no time restrictions, and the bill is calculatetl bythe 6 second i~~te~~als. CnllS~rsie Poge at 1-800-365-00.18.UI insurance colnpany offers lo\\, rates for our ineo~be~s OII malpractice insuranceCnll Bcirbnm VlMderr nt 361-576-2186BEING AMEMBEROFHASIT'S BENEFMBrennes-Jones Group offers our ~i~en~bers the ability to accept credit cardpayments at \\'holesale credit card processing rates ihrough the TCDW Raokcxd Program.Cnll~lrir~ Rogers nt 1-800-970-2592 .x1016.HAS High Speed Access is offering our n~embers free installation, free equip-ment, no deposit, free 100 blB of web hosting, and the first month of senice free for DSI. internetconnections. C~tllA~mdrerriEspi~rzo nt 1-877-743-4776DELL.COM is offering TCDW referral fees for Dell har~lwwre purcl~ased onh~e tlwouglrthe TCDLA website. Go to TCDW.com for the Dell link.Subscription Services Inc. is offering up to a 50% discount off the coverprice of ncarly ever)' ~nmgazine printed for our members. CnllilInri!j~rr nt 1-800-289-6247.--Please call, write or e-mail Kellie Bdej~ at kbailey@tcdla.com with any input.'So join-see membership application 011 the back cover.SEPTEMBER 2001 VfWW.TCDLA.COM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 31

Mr. Gedd GarreltChair, Texas Board of Pardons znd Paroles209 \Vest 14@St., Suite 500Austin, Tem 78701Ms. Lima McElroyGe~~eral Counsel, Texas Board of Pardons md Paroles209 West 14Ih St., Suite 500Austin, Texas 78701Rh': ISFPlncetnerrtDear Chdrman G~Wett, Board Men~bers md Gcneld Co~uisel:The receut pmctice rega~diag ISF place~nents in the absence of revacationhcatb~gs has generwd nmny discossions. Board menlbers are divided mdco~flicted over this issue md ihc Board 11s recently been tl~rcatened withlegal action.I run notconflicted on thisissue. Ifeel lhat that the Board's piactice regardingtltis matter is n ~t~x~y to Ian! I dso believe that the thrat of w a lawsuitprior to any lntim~al discussion of the issue is not m effective way to b~hgahout change. What I believe has bee11 lacking on both sides is a thorouglland cogellt em~ination of the la\\,. I hwe tried to set forth belo the va~iot~sbtutoxypmdsions, Board poliy slatcments md Diriston dieclivesdealing with this in an effort to focus us on he language of the hnr. It is inthe language of the law that nre will hd nhether the Board's actions areauthorized or ill conceived.Exaiin~ngwrioustatutes and cecomiling language ill order to pmduce aconsiste~n inte~yretatton is a veq difllcutt task In fact, there are sututesthat spccScaJly deal wit11 th and they are co~~lainedtl~c CodeCo~~st~~~ction Act The geneml premise of the act is that wvl~es dmhg withvarious code provisioiis or sections, the specfic co~~trols ovcc the gei~e~'al.In other words, if tliere are two sm~tes or sections of astatute that dealwthtl~esameissues, the languzge in the~n~orc speci6cprovisiou will control theintcrpreutiou of the mole genet% statute. TI& sl~ould be kept in mind aswe esahuie the foUowing legisldion.Tl~e Board's stafi~to~y aullwrity is contained UI Section 508, TewsGowwntenf Code. The gencralpawen and ddues of the Board are bundin 508.044 and luclude the autl~nrity to in~pose conditions of release.There are n~andldnto~y conditiou that are to bc imposed G08.181-508191) md discretio~~ary canditio~ls that may be imposed W.78221-508,225). The Bontd is st%h~to~lly authori.led in 508221 to in~pose anycondition of supelvision that n court may impose under Article42.12, Taws Code of CrinlinfllPmcednre.There are huited statuto~y provisions in Section 5Os that speak directlyand specifically to the Wrd's authority to modify conditions d snpenision.For instance:The Board may parole a releasee to a Co~n~~ttntity ResidentialPncilffy or lhey may rquife him to be placed in such a facility as il sawtion Section 508.219, Terns Gouem~nent Code slates that:The purpose of a commnity reside~~tial facilityis to provideIlousing, sopclvisiou, counseling, pc~so~~d, social aud workadjustn~ent tcxhhg, and other progtm~s to:~eleasces who are repired by a p~role pmel as a co~~clitionof t'elmre on palole or to mmdnto~y supenision to sem apied in a con~m~mityresulentid facility; andlelcasees wlwse parole or n~andatoty supelvision hs beenwntinued or niodilled under Section 508.283 and on whomsanctions have beer1 imposed imder dmt sectionThe kgislah~re has, by calving out hvo methods for this type of plmruent,32 VOIB FOR THE OEFENSE \IYVVW-TCDlA.COM SEP1EMBER 2001

s~chmodiration is imfioSkd as a sanction lor s violation of snpe~vision. N~euan allegation of violation is brought to the atrention of the Board, a hewing isreqni~ed before the Board can modify supehlsion. This argnmm only gainssirength when we keep hl mind tha! the sanction that we are talking about isconRnh~g the relmee in a secnrcd facilityfo~* a signlftca~tt amount Mtime.The only otiw stahufo~ypranf of anthority for the Board is a derivative gmt ofanthority found in Section 508.221. Conditions permined genemU5Aparole panel may impose as a condition of parole or mmdatotysupenfsion my condition that a court may impose on adefen-&nt phced 011 connuunity sapemision under Article 42.12, Codeof ClWal Procechtre, including fke condition that a ideaseesubmit to testing for tontmlled suhsla~~ccs or sntbmit to elwnnicmonimring if the parole panel determines tbat \v&bout fstingfor controlled s~b'ncs or participaliqn in an electronic monitor21~program tlxc inmate ~"onld not bc released on prude.Tlie Board md the Prole Dhision appear to vim lhe lmguap of Actiele 42.12as a primmy bbasis for their authority to send a releasee to a conhenlent kcill-tywithout the need for arevocation hea~iug, It has beenrelied upon as being abroad derivatitegmt ofanthorityfrom thelegislature but tl~ai conclusion is notsuppofted by tfiehgnnge of tbe slntute.contemplated diIFerc~~t situations md dikrent man~~en of imposing additionaleol~£inemeut aftef rehe fi.0111 a prison unit The h t situatioll autho&es thedirectplacement of* ~eleme from a prison unit to tl~isfacility ss a conditionof relensr (5D8.lI9(a)(I)]. Tl~e second situation speaks ditwectiy to authoriringthh @lacenlent af a sanefion or modl~cation nnposed pniwmt to508.283. (508.119(~)(2)). The clear and unatobigc~o~~s langunge of 508.113(a) (21 pwnlits the Board to require this placement only after m~~pl$ng withtl~e hating requirements in508283S~ction508.283 slates that:After a parole panel or designated agent of the homd has held ahm-hig under Section 508.281, the bwd may, iu my mannerwarranted by the eevidcncerecamntend to the 8manor to contmue, revoke, or modify theco~~ditianal pcdon; orcontinue, revoke, or modify the parole or nmdato~ supenision.Other re~e~nt Co\.ermlwnt Code Sections spaking &%rectly to the mo&cati~nof conditions of snpcrvision ae bud inM8281-508.284, Under these provisions,a relmcc is entitled to a hearing before the Board before a parolep.u~l ran dispose of charges T Y I a ~ releasee is accused of a violatioh ofthe Releafee's parole or mnndafory supervision. 5B.281.After tlrc Board has held a hearitm~, the panei maysanction the releasee bycontinuing, revoking or mo&in~the paroie sr mandatory snpeivisioi508.283,I believe thxt a persuasive argument esists that tlis derivati\r, gnnt of authorityis $pecifinliy limited to the imposition of conditio~~s of supelvision as a preconditionto relesse. The exact aid spec& Lquage ofSecliort5Bd21 doesnot g*nf the Boad the aolhorily lo do eveqthing that a coml cat1 do in Article42.12 hut is limited to imposing "any conditlo~l that a mnrt maybnpopose..,". If fhelegslah~re had intmded for the Bod's authority to enconipasthewhole of Article 42.12 it !vould haw stated &at.Ifo~wer, for the purpose of this nrguruent, even ifweassume that he Bwd hasdl of the authority of a Conrlas set lorth in Article 43.12, a careful esnminatloflof An. 42.12 mads that there are Mnite lin& on tl~e G1u2's ability to modfyconditionsof supervision If the Board claims hticle 42.12 as tke source oftheir mtlmrity then they nnu also be bm~dby its Uo&tions.Article 42.12 is a lengthy slahtte tbat cont~ns 23 different sections. An examioatinnof the stahlte show tbat the legrslafiw lagage clearly and mm~biguouslydistinguishes beheen the Court's abiJity to uitidy impose conditions ofsqxwision md the Conrt's later ability to modify conditions when m8evsregarding the atij~t~tmcnt af the probtioner are brought to its nrention.While the Crmrfs hnveandmost unlimited authority (as docs the Bmd) to initiallyinipose my reamnable condition that is designed t~ protect or restore tliecommunity, protect or restore tbe viclin~, or punish, relabilitate or reform thcdefendaut, their ability to later change, modify, alter or amend the previouslyImposed conditions is limited. The hutations are spelled out in .ye&c stahlnlto~ypmisions, wbich use uiin em&e below.Ne otlierprovisinns in Secti~n508of the Goveromcnt Code directly addres theSEPTEMBER 2001 \N\NW.ICDLA.COM VOICE FOR THE D€FeNSE 53

Article 4212 (10) (e), Tevas Code of CritnindPmcedure.If a supervising officer or magistrate modifies the conditions ofcorm~m~~ity supervision, the officer or magistrate shall deliver acopy of the modiEed cond~tions to the defendaut, shdEIe a copyof the modified conditious with the seuteucing court, and shallnote the date of delivery of the copy in the defendant's file. Jftl~edefendant agrees to the modiocatiou iu writi~~g, the officer ormagistme sl~all Ble a copy of the modified conditions with thedjstict clerk and the conditions shall be enforced as n~odiEed.If the defendant does not agtee to the modfications in ur~iUug,the superviaon officer or tnagistnte sl~all refer the case to thejudge of the court for modifications in the same manner pmvidedby Section 22 of this a~ficle.Tlus section speaks directly to the n~odification of the original condit~ons ofsupe~visiou that were imposed at the time of the seutet~cing It is importaut touote that tl~isection does not require any allegation that the defendant has violateda conditiou of supe~~ision. It covisio~~s situat~ons where the modiocat~onrequest could be based upon the nee& of the defendant mther thm inresponse to the conunission of aviolatiou. Eveu UI the case of a ueeds basedniodifkatio~~, the legislature has specifically required that a modiation cannotbe enforced without the defendant's written agleemeut. If the defendautdoes not agvee, the statute ~equires that the rnatter be referred to the Court fordisposition iu the same manner in which violations are addressed, Wide thereis no comparable s$tute in Sectiou 508 of the Goverumeut Code, no one couldague with the concept that the releasee would be similarly bound to n1odi0-cations of supe~vision which he agreed to. Bowveer, the lrquirenmts of ahearing in this situation should se~w as notlce that when a violstiou of supervisiouoccuvs the need for aheahgprior to my modification becomes a11 evenstronger requirement.If there is alt allegation before the Court that the defendwt has comn~itted a violationof lus terms of s~pe~vision, the Court lnust hold a l~eariug aud mah adetern~iation that aviolatiou didin fact occur before rno*~g the couditionsArticle 42.12, Section 22If after a hearh~g uuder Sectiou 21 of this article a judge contillueor modifies coll~munity s~~pe~vision after detemn~~~g that thedefendant vlolatetl a condition of corrrmuity supewision, thejudge mayimpose my other conditions the judge determines areappropriate.The above language mirro~s the statutory rcquiroment placed on the Board.Section 508.283, Gotiert~menl CodeAfter a parole panel or designated ageut ofthe bomd has held ahearing under Sectio~~ 508,281, the board may, in any mannerwa~xuted by the evidence ... co~~tinue, rewke or modi paloleor nlandato~y supenision111e Stahltoly bngc~age is clear and consistent m botl~ the Govecm~ent Code audin the Code of CrW~al Procedure. Modiocatious of sopelvlsio~~ can beimposed without a hmrit~g ouly if the iudividual agrees to the modificationOthemise, both statutes require uotlce UI writing, a hearfi~g before the properauthority and a detetmiuatlatron by the proper authority that a aiolatioo hasoccurred. CerL?inly, wl~eu the modfication is made as a sanction for a viobtion,a Morrissey type hearkg camot be avoided witl~outhe Release'sconcmmncc.h the abseuce of dm$ expmsed leplative authority to the contmy, theBoard cannot sanction a relmsee and modify his supenision by confu~Qhim in an Intem~ediate Sanction Facilitywthout con~plying wit11 the languageiu tile Government Code or the dwimtivelanguage iuArticb 42.12. The odyconclusiou that can be reached is that the Board lacks the a~~thortty to modifyconditions of release based up011 an auegation of violation without eitherobtaiuiug the conseut of the meleasee or after l~olding a hea~iug to determineuhetl~er or uot a violati011 has occurred. The courts wil closely scrutiuize amodification that results in confinement without the d~re pmcess reqdremeritsof Mo~~isey being met.An examination of the Board's own policy statement in this area reflects thehitimg language previously cited iu the stah~tes and buttresses t11e obvio~scn~~clusio~~ that the Intermediate Sm~ctiou Facility placemeut is beiug used tosanction releasees who are alleged to havcviolaied conditions of supe~vision.BPI! POL. 00-04.14, SPBCW, C(~WITIOI\"TSP (!I\'TE~~~~TE,UI\'~IOAPACILITK)Tl~epolicy statemeut deh~es the IS! facility as ':. medto confine loiu riskreleasee8 tinder actiue superuision with no pending crintinul c~m~geswho have vlolated the conditions of release to parole or tnandato~ysrtperuisiorr.. "Tl~e Specid Courtition is fi11f11er dehed as sel-iug to ".. .pnnish, rehabilitateor ~wform a releasee in response to a uiolation of conditions ofrel~se to parole or ~nundntoty snperuision. "Additional language in the policy statement states that 'Tpecid Condition'7SF is intenden to afforda sanctiotr for n releasee ruho faih tocn~nply ruith the ternts and conditions of release topatole or man(1atorysnperuision."The Bomd's iuteut 1s descr~bed iu Ule policy statements as "Tl~egonl of theboutd inlposed specid condition "ISF is to prouide a sanction thatwin sem? topunlsl,, tshn6ilitale or tsfirin a ~wteasee for a violationof the cunditwns of release topaide or stiperuisioti."Again, the clear, direct and ~mambiguous language illustrates that this conditionisto be imposed as asauction for violations of conditions of release. Buthow, consistent with the language of the Goven~ment Code or the la~gunge hthe Code of Crimiud Procedure or the dictates contained in the Morrisseydecisiou, CXI the Boad determiue u~l~etl~er or uot a violahon has occumdwithout holding a hearing on the matter? It should be beyond discussiou atflus point in time that the Board camlot co&e a releasee who has bca~alleged to hwe committed a violation of relme without fust dFordh~g ldm ahearing to determine u~hetl~er or not the violation did in fact occur aadwhether or not the modicatiou is appropriate.In fact, the policy statement ~rcogniws this fact and spells out the procedurefur the in~positiou of the Special Couditiot~ "Aparolepanel, rtpon mjori-IJ' vole, mn(g1 impose special conditio~~ "!SP"IS N conditi~n ofparofe ortnandntoty sriperuisiorr tdpo~l an nffirt~rntivefinding tilnt a rrlenseeviolated om or tnorw of the conditions of release toparole or ntan~lnro-34 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE ~.KDl.A.COM SEPlEMB6R 2001

I:), srrperbisiorr." fro\\' cm the Board legally make suc11 a11 affirlnative Gnding withoutcompl)ing wiL the hearing requiren~enls ~II Seclion 508?The Board's clearly espressed policy shows that the in~positio~~ of SpecialCondition ISF is to punish offenders wlio Iwe violated a col~dition of release.The p~~nisl~n~ent takes the for111 of confinement. It is a sanction for a ~~iolation bythe releasee and can be imposed only after an affirn~ative finding by a n~ajority of:I parole pa~d Illat a violati011 11as occurred. The Board lack5 a~~tllorilg eitherunder the Go\wnment Code, the Code of Criounal Procedure, the Board's owroles and policy staten~e~irs or the decisions of the United States Supreme Court totake s11c11 action UI the absence of a parole revocation hearing.So, if tile smhltes arc clear :md the Bo;~rd's policy statement is consister~t nith tirelanguage of the statutes aud with the case lay \\here is the practice of confiningreleasees in an hterl~iediale Sanction Pacility pursuant to an allegation of violationof supelvision but without a hearing coming ham? The answer call be found in heParole 1)ivision's i\dministrative Directive 44.1.PD/AI) 4.3.1, li\'TE~IIEDWTE ~\'CTIOA'filCIL1TS (ISF) CRITERIA was issued onJune 2. 2000. The directive states Illat the authorit)'for the directive can be foundin Section 508119, Gor,wr,rmerrt Code and BPP POL. W-0114. It should benoted that the Parole Di~ision statutorily "...is resporrsibieJor the irrcestigf~liorrnrrd srrperr~isiorr of ON ,elensees." Secliorr 508.112, Gor!errrrrrort Code. TheDivision has no authorit): i~idependent of the Board, to modify alter or amend conclitioilsof sopeniisiol~.The directive sets Iortl~ three situations where an ISF placen~ent can be madc. Onesihlalioll is as a result of the revocation process. This is clearly permissible andauthorized by slatllte. The nest situation spcaks to a panel imposing tlw ISP conditioni11ste:cd of a conditiv~~ tl~at has bee11 requested by the Di~ision. Alrl~o~~gl~ Illissection is wgue, a reading consistent wit11 the Code Construction Act, would interpretthis as a panel decision after a 11eari1g. (The Act directs thm if a mgue slahltecan he read in a manner consistent with constitutional requirements, that it sl~ouldbe read in Illat manner rather tllan in a wy tlmt ~vould cause it to be l~eld uncons1it1ti011:l).The Illin1 sitwetion set fort11 in the directive is placemer~l ill theIntcr~rediate Sanctions Facility via a transmittal based open one or more ruleviolations.This singol:~rsection of the P:lmle Di\isioa's directive is the source from\\,luch all of the confiisiot~ and contention and discussions have sprung.T\'e lrave erl~austively es:miined the Goven~menl Code and the Code ofCriminal Procedure and $no\\# we are all niore than faoliliar \rpith therequiren~ents of the courts of Texas, he Fifth Cicuil and he Supre~aeCourt. Nothing in Sectiorr 508.119, Gocerr~rr~errt Code or Bpi! POL. 00-04.14 supports or anthorizes confinement in an Intern~ediate Sanctiol~Facility as a slnclion for a rule viohtio~~ via transmittal. The ParoleDivision's directive to llus effect has no force or vdidih, in the kw. In fact.the procedure t~-ansccnds being unmthorized :old is p~tently illegal.I i~elieve Illat the above discussion l~as fairlgset for111 a detailed exemilmlionof esisting stat111es and policy \T%ile the Board's position hz beenadmnced in rather general terms, I have not seen my detailed statenmtsor argun~ents, gronnrletl in statute, Illat wooold lead nle to a conclusiondifferent from the one I h;we advanced herein. I \\auld be happy toengage in :I discussion wit11 you or any group of Board ~ ~~cn~be~s regar&ing my interpretation. \Vc are all interested in justice and fairness and wec;u~ discuss it u~telligently and rationallgwiti~out ll~reats of litigation.I sincerely appreciate your time :~nd your consideration of the ideas setforth herein If1 can, in any way, contribute more to a resolution of thisissue, pleze let nie kno\\!Sincerely,cc: Menhels, Texz Board ofP;trdons :~nd l'aroleshk. Carl Re)nolds, General Coonsel, Tesu Board of Criminal JusticeMr. Victor Rodriguez, Direclol; Parole Division WGm:y Cohe~t-Gfli:i~hns been n deferrse Iorq~w for rr~ore thm 26jemSir~ce 1987 he hns corrcerrtrnted on stntepnrole, porole ,a:ocntiorr nrrdfedernlsei~te,rcir~g rnses. Ile hns test&dns mr e.lpert before the TevnsSrrrrset Corrrrnissior~, nrrd otl~er legislf~tice committees, orrd is chairnmnof 1'CDIII:v Porole 111rdSer11~~1cirrg Conrnrittee.SEPTEMBER 7.001 WWW.TCDLLCOM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 35

vconunent on his failu~e to testih md that the instmction did not core theerror. COA relied o~~iMcCnrmn, 60511589 (CCA l980), to hold that a comnlentmade before the close of the defendant's case cannot be a comnentapplicable because tl~ey have to do wit11 enhancements. Tl~e majority justassomes, without any analysis or autl~o~it): that the sane principle mustapply in contest of stacked sentences.on the fdlure to test&! but also found this "established mle" did not annlv~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~.rDissent by Johnson: The n~ajority's intekyretatiou is inconsistent with2to judges. PDR was gcu~ted to determine if COA was correct in restricting thestahlle. To readinto 42.08 the discretion for a trial court to dccideu~l~e~~such CoIllmeIlb to prosecuto~s and witnesses.Held: A statenlent can be a commellt on the defendant's failurethat particular defendant acquired a conviction is lndicrous. Tlus wouldallow the trial court to deternunc, wvilly-nilly, wv11e11 the conviction occurred.to testifv e en if made before he rests his ease. h1cCavon did not That goes agdnst the veq hmrt of our judicial system, equal justice undercreate a per se n11e that a comnent made before the close of a defenda~~t's tl~e lam It is not diIficult to imagine 11ow suc11 a system could be abused.case can never be a comment on the failure to testii, but mtl~er uras a factorto be co~isidered. 'liniing can be a factor in deter~nining wvhetl~er the COURT OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION TO ENERTAIN APPEAlcomncnt was n~auifestly intended to be a cormnent on the dcfentlant's mont REVOCATION OF DEFERRED: GARYJEFFERSON VJDAURRI U.silence, or was of sucli character that the julywould necessarily take it as State, No. 151-99, Appellant's PDR from Potter County;such, but is not by itself dispositiw. COA n~isconsln~ed the 11oldi11g in Reversed/Atnnned in part, 6120101; Offense: hdecency; Sentence: 12~IIcCnr~on by holding it did not apply to judges. Judgment is therefore vacat- yrs; COA: i%med (98W478 -Amarillo 1998); Opinion: Mep, joineded, and case is remanded for proceedings consistent with tlus opinion. by tlolland, mice, Holcon~b & Henne~ Sepalxte Concurring Opinions:Womack & Johnson; Dissent: Kelle~ joined by KenslerSTACKING PRIOR SEN'ENCE ONTO SUBSEQUBN'S SENENCEHELD PROPER: il.t4RYmT~PBTrIGRBWu. Stnte, Xo. 1417-99, Appellant pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and ~va initially placedState's PDR from Snud Couutl., Reversed, 6120101; Offense: hfurdcr; o~i deferred for 10 yrs, but after violating conditions of pl,obation, was adjn-Sentence: 75 )IS; COA: Reversed in pet (NP - vier 1999); Opi~uo~i: rlicated gniity after pleading "not tlW to the allegatio~is and sentenced toKeller, joined by ~olland, Won~ack, Hency & Holcomb; Dissent: Price, 12 11s confinement. Ile complained on appeal that he was erroneouslyjoined by hleyn, Jo11nso11 & Kesler; Dissent: Jolu~sondeprived of a punisl~ma~t hearing prior to sentencing. COA held thatbecause Appell71t filed a general notice of appeal, and lus complaint was ofIn 1995, Appellant was placed on 10 )IS probation for aggravated sexu- a IIOII-j~~risdictiol~al defect, it had no jorisdictiou to entertai~~ it and disdassault, uhich he um sewing uheu comicted of murder in i\ugust 1997 missed that portion of the appeal. COA also l~eld that error was w\raived whenand sentenced to 75 )~s. His probation on the sexual assault was re\70kcd AppcUmt failed to object UI the trial court. PDR uras gimted to dctemineand he wvas assessed a 10-yr sentence, wluc11 \\.as stacked onto the 75-yr w11eLcr TRAP 25.2(b)(3) limits the right to appeal, even tl~oirgh the defersentence.Houwer, on appeal, COA deleted the stacking order because the dant pleads not tnle to viola tin^ conrlitior~s of deferred, and if not, whetheraggmwted sexual assault conriction preceded the nn~rder conviction, rasoningthat TCCL' 42.08 precluded stacking a prniws sentence onto a subsequentone. State's PDR\\#as granted to second guess this 111ling.claim of denial of a separate uonishn~ent hearing becanse saidHeld: The trial court was authoi.ized to stack the aeeravated claim does not cl~allenge the con~~iction. but the process by whichsexilal assault onto the murder sentence. The Stahlte sa)5 that a he was sentenced, an issue unrelated to his conviction: thus, COA"judgn~cnt in a second and subsequent conviction may eitl~er be that the erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction to address the claim. CCA firstsentence in~posed or suspended s11aU begin uhen the judgn~ent and the sen- finds tl~ar it made no difference u'l~ether Appellant pled "m~e" or "not tn~e"tewe imposed or suspended in tl~e preceding co~~viction has ceased to to the allegatio~is that l ~e had violated deferred. There is nothing in the lanoperate"or that the sentences nay 111n concurrently After conducting an guage of the n11e hat indicates otbelvise, nor has CG\ e w said that aanalysis based 011 the stahlte and its prior case law, CCA concludes that trial defendant's plea concerning alleged violations of deferred inlpacts his rightcourt did not errwlm~ it stacked theprior sex offense onto the murder con- to appd. CCA tl~en refin~s precedent that holds a defendant is entitled toviclion. Althougl~ it may appear tliat COA's interpretation is correct, an a scpante punislm~ent l~eadng alter ~tvocation of deferred. Issn, 88211159alternative constr~~ction n~ore consistent with CCA's precedent is that for (CCA 1992). COA bad erroneo~~slyrelicd 011 IWson, 944/nl1 (CCA 1996),purpose of stacking, a case could be treated as a "conviction" at the time wl~icll~eld tl~at fonner TRAE' 40(b)(l), now Rule 25.2(b)(3), restricted anse~~tence is suspertded or at the time selilence is i~nposed. In Spe~~cer, appeal to those issues included UI the n11e wl~enever the defendant plcads50311557 (CCA 1974), the defendant uras placed on probation for burglaly, guilty or nolo and is sentenced in accord with a plea bargain. IIouHever,convicted of POh1, and then his probationuras revoked and stacked onto the Iktsoii has been uarroued by subsequent mes, most notably Pengin,marijuana sentence. CCA held this was permissible under a Drior wxion of 96711417 (M 1998) (defend:uit on deferred may appd an error ~II or&-the Stahlte: because the sentelm WLS iirrposedfor the Erst time following ihd plea proceeding w11e11 revoked), and :lInrrirel, 994fl658 (CCA 1999)tile revocation, trial coort had discretion to stack it onto tl~e prior sentence. (appeal from "regular" probation equated vivilb appeal from deferred andSubsequent cases are co~lsistent wit11 Speimr. Eg., Gordou, 57511529 (CCA jubseq~~elslt adjudication of guilt). 1Pnso1,r is disa~~owed to the extent it co11-1979) andiMcCulln,; 67611687 (CCA 1984). And, alt11ougl1 the statute has Oicts wit11 tl~ese later decisions, but reaffirn~ed for the proposition tht u41enbeen amended over the years, the material portions have reniained il~e State recomn~ends deferred, the tlial court upon re\zocation may assess~incl~anged. The logical conci~~sion, thel.elore, is that the legislature intend- my ~III~SIUIICII~ witlun tlie imge allowed by i;w Hourever, after saying allcd both suspended and imposed sentences to be treated as "con~ictions" for Ius, CCA then agreesuit11 COA tliat, because the right to apuriisl~n~eut hearpurposesof stackingin order to gix the trial court the mmin~un~ flesibiiiy ~ng is a statutory right \vIllich c;u~ be waived, Appellant 11ad to object in thepossible in sslack~g sentences. Trial court did not err, tlms, COA's judg~uent rial court or somehow bring tlus error to the trial court's attention. Seeis reversed, and trial coeiz's judgment is affirmed.CRAP 33.1. CCi rejects hppellant's contention that he had no time to makeDissent by Price: Wm statote clearlysa)s that o~ily a second or subse- UI objectioo because he was sentenced inn~~ediately after being adjudicatedquent conviction can be stacked on a prior ot~. The majority's opinioa pily he should 11aw filed a motion for new trid to bring the matter beforeekcti~~ely ulites this tenlporal requirement out of the statute by holding tllat he trid court. COKs indgn~ent is rreeelsed to the extent that it disinissed thea conviction can occur eitlw wl~en a sentence is in~poscd or wl~en sos- ~pped for \mnt of jurisdiction, but it's alternate holding that t\ppellantpenrled. hloreove5 tl~ cases cited do not u~terpret 42.08, ond are not hnivetl error is &md.40 VOICE FOR M E DEFENSE WWVJ.TCDLA.COM SEPTEMBER 2001

IIndependent Impulse Instruction: AppeU~~t contends that he waseutitlcd to have the juq instructed that because Muphy may have independentlykilled the victim, Appellant could not be found guilty unless heanticipated the killing. The trial court did give an inslructiou on consphcy liability of parties as provided in TPC $ 7.02(b).Held: Independent impulse is not illeluded in the Penal Code.and thusLA~ellant9s pronosed iostruction would simplv negatethe conspiraw liability theory of the State's case. In Mflj$e/d,716609 (CCA 1986), CCA held the defendant w;ls entitled to the instmctionif the evidence idsed the issue. However, in Gimbtirg, 98411245 (CCA19981, CC4 held that defendants were no longer entitled to alibi instructionsbecause alibi was not enumerated in me Penal Code. iIffrj$e/d is overruled.have on others does not have any tendency to make it more or less probablethat the defendant lumself, ~xther thao ;u~ accomplice or codefendantactually caused the death, or did not achlally cause the dealh, bnl intendedto kill the victim, etc. Here, Appella~t con~plzins about relevance of tlle victim-relatedevidence to all three punisl~ment issues, not just mitigation. Themajority addressed only mitigation, but xs Appellant did not present errorregarding the other hvo issues (objection wxs based solely onTRE403), themajoritywas correct to address only that issue. IIowwel; its opinion shouldnot be read as bearing on the issue of relevance to future dangerousness oranti-partie? issees.Other rejected claims: Fuhue dangerousness insufficiency; deuial oflesser-included offense instmction.Opinion of Cay Witness: Da\is was allowed to give her opinion of theultimate issue in the case. When the State asked who was responsible forthe robbeq she answered (over abjections) that Appellant was. Appellautcontend that it uns error to allow her to render a lay opinion and to speculateabout Appellmt's mental state.Held: Under 'IliE 701. Davis' opiniol~ was admissible becauseshe had personal knowledge of the facts, and her testimony wasbased on that knowledge: moreover. her noinion was helpful to them. CCA also s a that ~ if the trial court erred to admit Davis' opinion, theewr was harmless.Supplen~entation of Record: Appellant claimed the State engaged inprosecutorial misconduct because Wood \\,as allowed to testify that she hadnor had she been sentenced. Appellant n~o\~ed to supplen~ent fhe appellaterecord with a docket sheet to support this claim that the State had is&\Vood a "swcethemt" d d in excl~ange for her testimonyHeld: Motion to supple~nent is denied. Wlile TRIP 34.5(c)(l)allows tl~e record to be supplen~ented with nlnterial onuned from the appellaterecord, it does not allow creation of a new appellate record.Victun Impact Evidence at Punishnlcnt: The State was allowed,through the victim's brother to introduce photos of the victim, his familymembers, u~cludi~~g\~~eddingpich~res and sceues of various fanlily activities.Appellant complains the pl~otos wre not relevant to any issue in the punishmentphase, were inadmissible victim irupact evidence, and were moreorciodicial than nrohati!,~.and had the effect of lmmanizing the victim and lus family. Although it hadrelatively lomprobative due, the photos did not hwe a potential to impressthe juy in an irrational way. It did nothing to single out tlus \ictim or hisfamily as being different fron~ other families, and was not gmesonle ordesigned to shock jurols or cause an extreme factors. Also, the testimonywas comprised of only seven photos witl~~ three pages of testimou): so timeto present it was relatively brief. Trial coiul was witlh~ his discretion toadmit them.Concurring Opinion: The majority s;~ys victim impact and characterevidence is relevant in contest of the nutigation special issoe and as rebuttalto uutipiltiug evidence, bo does 1101 address rele~nnce of the photos to fl~eother punishment issues: fuhlre daugerousness and mli-parties. Here,there wxs no evidence fhat Appellant knew the victim or his fmlilx thus thevictin~ impact and cha~acter evidence is patently irrelevant to the question offilfure dangerousness. On the anti-pallies issue, such a charge was given:jum~s were ~zked to determine url~ether Appellmt himself caused the deathof the victim, or if not, that he intended to kill the victin or mother, or thathe auticipated that a hwm life would be taken. Relem~ce of victim impactand cha~acter evideuce 11s new been addressed by CC\. The puqose ofthe anti-parties charge is to focus the jury on the conduct or mental state ofthe defendant a opposed to that of a codefcndaut or accomplice. Wl~etl~erthe defendant knew or was aware of the impact the victim's death would2042-00 HKlEU, FREDDIE it 06/06/01 S Ifiu~ison Assault (032///68)The Court of Appeals erred in holding that Hatten's waiver of connselwvasuot !mowing and intelligent because the trid courl did not adnlonish I ~II asto the dangers and disadvmtagcs of sex-representation before accepting hisplea of "tme" to the state's ~n~otion to revoke.0260/4-01 JAUBERT, JR., JAhW HARttON 06/20/01 S X111ant Murder &~Ufempted Murder (NP)1. Does counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to request noticeof extwleous offenses pu~suanto art. 37.07, §3(g) ofthe Code of Crin~~alProcedure where the record is silent as to counsel's reasons for not doingSO?2. Does counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to request uoticeof ext~meous offenses pursuznl to article 37.07, section 3(g) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure where the record snpports no iderence that theDefendm~t was harmed?3. Docs article 37.07, Section 3(g), of the Code of Cri~uh~ai Procedurerequire the state to give notice that it v intends to use exhaseons offense evidencewhere that evidence is not wd in the state's case-hchiet?4. Does cowsel render ineffecti e assistance by faihng lo request noticeof exhmleous offenses pmseanl to article 37.07, section 3(g), of the Codeof Crinund Proccd~~re where the state iutroduces the con~plained-of-evdencefor putposes of rebuttal, impeachment, or testing the bsis of a cbxactcrnitness' knowledge?5. When a case is transferred on appeal to a diierent court should thereceiving court of appeals apply the law of the fo~~\~arding co~nl of appeals?0288-01 BRO\W, RASHkW bWURKE 06/20/01 S Nab8arro TakingControlled Sobstance into a Jail (035///183)1. \Vhere the Dcfe~~dant is charged wit11 taking a contmUed subshnceinto a comtioual facility, is tl~e eiridence insufficient to prove lhal theDefendant voluntarily engaged UI conduct pursumt to Penal Code, §6.01 (a), because the defendaut \!as hmsported into the jail agniust his will?037617-01 GARCIA, GABRIEL 06/20/01 A Guaddupe Uulanhl Ca~qu~gof \Veapoe; POhl (AT)1. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that thae was re;lsonable suspicionto stop md detain Appellant because Appellant hesitated before proceedingthrough an illegal olice vehicle checkpoint, in violation ofAppellant's ~igl~ts under the 41 P 1 Amendment.

SiGlWWAh DECISIONSINEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: 2'11rwe1' u. State, No. 2-99-410-CR, 5/17/01It is ueU established that the fahe to co~umunicate a plea offer is IdCand eslablishes both prongs of Sfricklmd CO,\ holds that the failure tonotify the defendant of a deadline for acceptance of that plea offer is l oIl\C.NOTICE OF APPEAL IN PLEA BARGAIN: fifflllinez u. State, No. 2-00-237-CR., 5/17/01Eollowing a plea bargain, the defendant filed a notice of appeal thathiled to cornplywvitl~ Rule 25.2. Tl~e an~ended notice of appeal was not fileduntil dter the deadline. Tl~e COi\, ~IIIIS, has no jurisdiction to hear appeal.EXPECTATION OF P N C Y IN INTERROGATION ROOM: State u.Schei~terrrarar, No. 04-00-00581-CR, 5/16/01nvo defendants, under arrest, ask to spmk to one a~~olher alone.1 Unknown to either, the police record ll~e co~~versation. Thougb ordinarilydefendants in custody h:ive no expectation of privacy in an interrogationroom, here, the defendan6 by their request to speak alone, n~destetl adesire for prim): one wlucl~ the COA h~ds to be objectively reasonable.Confession suppressed.IMPROPER JURY ARGUMEW Harris arrd Walker u. Strrte, No.14-99-00722-CR, 5/10/01This is a strange case. Defendant wa cos\icted of felou in possession ofa fiream. 1l1e evidence was found to be legally sufficient because of coatndicto~y-statenlents given police at arrest sce~~c by dekndmt and codefendantand because of fin?i\,e gestures by defeodant in the car prior to atmt.E~idence factually it~suficient \\here COA hds tllat the slatenlents vere notthat conl~adicto~y.EXCLUSION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ERRONEOUS:dlrrhn~~rrrrad e. State, Ko. 08-98-00399-CR, 5/24/01COA h~ds that exclusion of psycl~ological evidence at pulushn~ent phasewas erroneous baed on two tl~eories. Noting that admissibility of evidenceat the punislment phase is less a matter of relevance tha~~ policy becausethere are no elen~ental facts to prove, COAholds that \\hett the State ar~~edthat Defendant sl~owed no remow and was a cold blooded killer thatDefendant um entitled to rebut dlegation wit11 expel? testinmy. COA alsoreviews estensh~ely . the prior . case law about probation suitabilily and concludrs111:~ cy~ur~ ttvin~n~~y is :~dn~i.isihlc 011 III;I~ i.w :LS well. I'IIIIIICI; (:I).\i1111ds lint he ps)t'Ili:~l~.id ;:illsfit 11 TKli 7111 \\llr~e Ilia 0llmi011 \\;bil~l!d 011well cstablisl~ed psychological testing.FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WHEN EYEWITNESS ID'DSOhlEONE ELSE: Ward u. State, No. 10-99-252-CR, 5/23/01).one else and because the defendant produced volu~uinous elridence of alibi,hcludu~g co\vorkeken, supervisor, and vrork records, evidence \vas deemedto be factudly insificient.nvo defendants 011 trial for aggnwted robbe~y wlwe the presidiugjudge o\rr the wial is avisitu~g judge. State argues to the jn~y tk~t the usualelected judge \vould not want these two defendanb on probalion. Tlus vasoutside the record and Barnhl. COA dso addressed the state's cross examinationof one defendant wl~ere the prosecutor asked the defendant orargued to the defendant that it would not l~ave been wise to plead g~~iltydireclly to the judge without an agreed reconm~endation for a sentence.Because tl~e defendant could only Lave learned this informtion from hiscounsel, the Cot\ holds that tllis h e of questioning vioalted tl~e attorneyclient privilege. Error, 11on.cvel; was l~arn~less.INl'eRPRETER'S STATBMENIS ADMISSIBLE: Gonrez u. State, No.OI-00-00421-CR, 5/1/7101Defendant, arrested for D\M, spoke only Spanish. He tells an inte~preterwho tells the police he vas driving on a public street. The officer testifies incourt as to rrl~alhe inter~reter told 11it11. COA holds that state~~~enls of interpreterare skltenlenfs of the defendant on 2 theo~y of agency and tlms,adnussible as stateaests by a party opponent.DWI ENIIANCEMEW 1Villianrso11 u. State, No. 05-98-00968-CR,5/15/01With a prior D\W alleged to elevate a subsequent D\VI to a felon): theprior judgment need not retlecl a co~~riction. Since 1984, IIO final conviction112s been required and tl~us, only a finding tl~at guilt has been adjudicated.EVIDENCE HELD FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT Ngrrjwr s. State, No.06-000-00148-CR, 5/24/01DEFECTIIT JURY CHARGE - NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE: Plol'es U.State, No. 10-99-361-CR, 5/23/01A ju~y clmrge for criminally negligent ho~nicide was found defectivewhere it stated th:it the defendant acting with criminal negligence causedbodily inju~y to the con~phi~ant. R omitted the allegation that those actscaused the victiiu's deatl~. No objectio~~ to j111-f charge but error \vas egregiousbmd on Apprwdi u I\'~III JerSeJ', 530 US. 466 (2000). COA corncluded that an error wlmx a ju~y \\'as pcm~itted to co~~vict on less thm dlelements required for conviction violated due process md tlms, was egregiouslyharn~ful. Look for a PDR on this one.&I'u~J~DEPECTnT JURY CHARGE -VIOLATING PRO'IECTI\'B ORDER:I< Sfflfe, NO. 03-99-00819-CR, 5/31/01A joy charge for the offense of violating a protective order was deemeddefective For failing to require that the juy fi~l tllat the defe~~dant knew aprotective order had bee11 issued, that he \vas mare of its contents, and ll~atl~ei~~teutionaUyvioI;~tedit. COAfound egregious harm, absent objection,based on weak evide~~ce on those elements. Decent discussion on when anoffense requires a culpable mental slate.INSUFPICIEiVI EVIDENCE TO PROVE DEADLY WEAPON: Lee u.State, No. 03-00-00079-CR, 5/31/01The defendant is charged \\it11 aggravated robbe~y No weapon was everfound but one witness rlescribed it as a11 air pistol. The defendant put it tothe l~eatl of the victin but never tl~reatened her with it nor alten~pted to useit as a bludgeon. COA holds that there is no1 enougl~ evide~~ce to prove it wasa deadly~veapon, based on tl~c defendant's intent.SEPTEMBER 2001 VJVJVJ.TCDU\.COM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 45

IMPROPBR ARGMIEN?! Parker u. Sfafe, No. 06-00-00043-CR,5/29/01MA cou1t allows state to sununarize its evidence to the juiy at the endof each day; same privilcge accorded the defense. COA holds that this summaryis in effect ju~y argun~ent; prosecutors ref& from actual sununa~ybut instead engage in wgun~ent. COA holds that this violates TCCP 36.01,which dictates the order of trial proceedings. Because this statute has constih~tionalimplications, the harm is measured by the constitutional standardof whether it can be determined that tl~ error is 11ar111less beyond a reasonabledoubt which the COA so concludes.PAROLE LAW INSIXUCTION FOR NON-AGGRAVATED OFFENSE:Bell u. Sfate, NO. 06-00-00142-~~, 5/29/01Defendant convicted of anon 3g offense and no ffirnlative finding of adeadly weapon is made. Trial cou~i~ives jury the 3g instruction onthat tlle defendant must seive half lus sentence. Because defendant fails toobject, COA finds no evidence of egregious harmNEW PUNISHMENT TRIAL ORDBRED:AI~III~~~I u. State, No. 09-00-223 CR, 5/23/01State introduces defendant's prior criminal record at punislt~nent withoutany effort to link the judgments to the defendant other tltm lus name.Case reversed for new punislu~~ent healing.The Mentioned above ere synopses of opinions of the appeals courts listedSignficant Decisions Report was reported byCynthia L Hampton, Ednor - Mike Charkon, Assistant EdflorWe inv'te ali comments and construdve cificism from our members endVoice for the Defense readersPLEASE E-MAIL OR FAXJohn Carroll VUiCEEdtor. jcarrollf%ntemail.com - 210-829-0134The SOWS printinp cost is funded by The Judicial ECounTraining Fund andadministered by the Texas Court of Criminal AppealsbRegistrationfContinental Breakfast% Welcome/Sponsor RecognitiodntroduetionsReceni Decisions wbick Af&t Non-Cifizen Criminal &fmdarr%s: How St Cyr alrdHcmandn-Avalos In~pacf Crinlinal Defenrr of tbe AlienHon. Margaret Burkhart, Immi~ittion Judge, EEOIR, HadingenConvictions: What They Munfor Your Nun-Cith ClimtMr. h n Kesselbrenner, National Lawyers' Guild Immigration Law ProjectBreakDo Crin~inal Defmrr Counsel Haoc an Ethical Duty to D&nd Aga~nst Immigration EJltcb?Practice Pointe~ for Nc@tiafing and Dejmding m Pleas aad S&ncingProf. James Smith, UC DavisI Lunch with Mr. Doug linker, Criminal Defense Attorney, Corpus Chrm'To thr Honorable Judge of Said Court: Roo Criminal Pfeas and Sentmces Impact theNow-n'timfron~ he Judicial PersbectiwHon. Lory Rasenbeig, Board of Immigration Appeals, Washington, D.C.So They're Smtmced and They've Srmd. Mat l%e Criminal Defmre Attorney Must Know AboutInlmijrafi~n RelidHon. David Ayala, Immigration Judge, EOIR, HarlingenBreakbt-Conviction Crimiml Relic/'Yur Ethical Duties ResurrectedBruce Anton, Attorney at Law, Dallas, TexasThe Baon~eratq E&?: D(Imditq the Nun-Cituen Faci~g Federal hticjration ChargesEd Stapleton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Appeals Section, Fort WorthA .%II.Icta/R~ccptionJor tL Judiciay and Criminnl 1)eftnw I'ractitionrrr11 information, contact 1'uncil, lnc. 107 N. 3 4 Harlingen, Texas 78553/956.425.698

I CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS PROJEClPURPOSEANDSCOPEBar Card #~%rrat or New MemberO NOI-MemberO hlyregistration ends Sep~mber 2ht, alier lliat date, please addMwnhembip fewB.&tejowr mmbersh orpin and@ the sarni$rnr at tb ntemberpice!NewMembm (See Be ? ow) -O Renm your MembershipCEIM'tAttsnd?Bny tlxc Book. . . . . . . .~~~~As a current mrnlkr olTCDI,\ I believe this applir;mt to be a pelaoll of profrssiondcanlpetency, intvgrily, ootlRood n~olnl clla~tclc~: 'fllu applicant is lirencrd to claice hr.ill Texas and is rl~gw?d - - in the delcnse of crhinal C~SVS, IIIII~SS a stllll('nt or ;hiate :lppliant.Sipnawc of MemberiUember.s NamePlease callllrmrly nt 512/#78-2514 or check out ww1Peb site - rmuur.t~.mnz fir lnformnNonlA Pday seminar presented by tthe Cnmid Dsfense LawyersProiecf h s seminar uses o nod approoch to oddress o COWmon chalbn e for mosl atiwneyr. With infeoclive prewlations focuA siudies, and o cmprehenswe monual, ahornn/swill [earn ~QW to devehp the theory 06 four common cnrninolc-5 The twrsdoy seminar ~ncludes educot~on on dwg caseschiid abuse cases, cases wfh wtness d@h~olion isms, andc- wtth dfdefeefense imes The semmor ts offered in fcurlocatmns ocross TexasDenton, Oti 4-5, 2001 Longview, Jonuory 2002El Paw, hFay 23.20m CororpusChrisfi,Juh/ 11-12.2002FEATURED SPEAKERS INCLUDL*John Convery* Claudia Montani* Rusfy Gyer* Mike Heiskell* Greg Westfall* Gerry Morris*Jeff Keotney" Ron Goranson* @a Cla Jackson* Reagan ynnX" Richard Schmill* Bill Harris* Michael Grass* Dan Hagood"Jim lavine* Rick HogenTOPICS INCLUDE:* Trying the E Wrtness Identification CaseTheones for Wtnning theSelf-Defense Case* Recent Significant Decisions* Ehics: Re resenting the Wienf andKeeping $" our Fee* Themes and Theon'es In DefendingChild Abuse Cases* Develo ing the Defens~ve Theory* Themes an cT.Throug R Expert Witnesses* Ethics: Dilemmas and Solutions* Develo ing Strategies and Theories~~rou~R Invesiigation and PreTrioi Motions