Published on:

by

On October 4, 2011, the United Supreme Court began its new term and heard oral arguments on seven cases. Because the Supreme Court’s opinions are considered the Supreme law of the land, its decisions will impact San Antonio and the entire Texas criminal justice system. Three of the cases deal directly with defendants serving time in state prisons – two cases concern inadequate representation and the third concerns Miranda rights. They are all seeking release on the grounds that they are being held in violation of their federally protected constitutional rights. While the oral arguments are over, the opinion from the court is to be determined.

Maples v. Thomas raises the question of whether or not a defendant can argue that a death sentence is unconstitutional because the lawyer messed up and did not file paperwork on time. The Eleventh Circuit court ruled that there was no reason to excuse the case. Maples confessed to the murders he is now serving time for, but he argues that his lawyers were so ineffective that he missed a deadline to appeal the ruling. Two lawyers had taken on Maples’ post-conviction proceedings Pro Bono. At some point after taking on the case, they both got new jobs at different law firms. They failed to contact the court, and important paperwork that was mailed to their old law firm was returned, unopened. The court then failed to try to make any further contact with the lawyers or with Maples. Thus he missed necessary deadlines, and by the time he found out about the mistake it was too late for him to correct it. In other words, his right to appeal was violated because lawyers quit the case without informing the court and the Eleventh Circuit court upheld that Maples had defaulted on his claims when he missed deadlines.

Howes v. Fields asks whether Miranda warnings must be read to a prisoner when being questioned because a prisoner is considered already in custody. Randall Fields is serving time on one crime when he was taken from his cell to another part of a prison and questioned by police officers about an unrelated crime. He was never read his rights and he argues that information obtained in that questioning session should not have been used against him in the trial that followed. If police officers do not to read a Miranda warning to a person, they can still question that person but cannot use that person’s statements against them in a criminal trial. So, the question is: If a person must be read their rights if they are in custody, is a prisoner automatically in custody and therefore entitled to the Miranda warning according to the Fifth Amendment?
Continue reading

Published on:

by

big brother.jpg The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, for the case of U.S. vs. Jones. In 2005, police in Maryland attached a GPS device to Antoine Jones’ car. They tracked his every move 24-hours a day, seven days a week, for four weeks. All of this was done without a warrant and without his consent. Based on information gained from this warrantless GPS tracking, Jones was sentenced to life in prison on drug charges. The D.C. Court of Appeals overturned the conviction and ruled that the constant GPS tracking violated Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court must now answer the questions: (1) Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on petitioner’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether the government violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The Founding Fathers could not, obviously, anticipate such technology as GPS devices and cell phones, but the amendments must evolve and adapt to maintain the Constitutional integrity and original intent of the document. And San Antonio residents, as citizens of the United States, justifiably expect the three branches of government to maintain a political system where it adheres to limits in power and endeavors to uphold reason, common sense, and individuality.

Are the measures the government employs to catch the bad guys restricting the basic freedoms that San Antonians take for granted? When the government and its acting bodies are allowed to regulate unchecked, we run the risk of living in a world that weakens our pride, damages our liberty, and distorts our equality. Are we willing, as citizens of Bexar County, to sacrifice our freedoms in the face of so-called security? People are expected to turn a blind eye to the repression of civil liberties and Constitutional guarantees for the supposed greater good. Are Texans implying consent to have our movements tracked and monitored simply by driving our cars on public roads? American citizens live under an expectation of privacy and those who possess positions of governmental power do so because of our consent.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

While most people try their hardest to stay out of a court room, five young Foreign National men were arrested in the early morning hours for breaking into the local courthouse. At about 1 AM on Wednesday, October 19, 2011, alarms at the Bexar County Courthouse in Downtown San Antonio alerted local authorities that someone was on the exterior fire escape. When police arrived, they discovered two of the men outside the building with a rented R.V. and three men inside. Apparently they had used the fire escape to enter through a fourth floor window or rooftop access door. All the men are in their early 20s, were unarmed, and were in custody by 1:30 AM.

The local investigation, which gained national attention, was coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is the investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security. The suspects were questioned to determine if this was just a prank or a terrorist plot. An unnamed source said that the men inside the building appeared intoxicated on the surveillance footage and at one point they are seen wearing sombreros. Photos released by local news show the men sporting the sombreros and running down the courthouse hallways. A precautionary bomb squad sweep of the building and R.V turned up nothing and the incident is currently being investigated as a burglary. The courthouse was opened and operating for normal business at 7 AM.

Unconfirmed reports claim that the men are Moroccan. Preliminary information states that some of the men flew into New York City and the rest flew into Miami in September. The R.V. was rented in New Jersey, though it has California license plates. Authorities found 90-day visas, maps, cell phones, and computers inside the R.V. It appears that the suspects have been travelling the country as tourists.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

food.jpg Three Bexar County inmates are currently scheduled for execution, but there will be no last meal requests for Frank Garcia, Guadalupe Esparza, and Rodrigo Hernandez.

In a swift and definitive move, the State of Texas has suspended the practice of serving a last meal to death row inmates. According to restaurant owner Brian Price, a former inmate and last meal request chef, prisoners do not necessarily get what they ask for when ordering their last meal. Just because a prisoner asks for special items does not mean they actually get them. Could they order anything they wanted? Yes, but according to Price, what they requested and what they were actually served were usually two different things. A prisoner’s request was filled by the prison chef (usually an inmate themselves) and limited to what was available in the prison kitchen. Now, instead of requesting a special meal before they are administered a lethal injection, prisoners who are to be executed will now have whatever the general population is eating.

In the center of this decision is Texas State Senator John Whitmire (Democrat, 15th Senatorial District). Whitmire is a member of the Texas Sunset Commission which is responsible for reviewing state agencies to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in state government. He also chairs the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice. It has been stated that eliminating the last meal from the prison system has nothing to do with saving tax payers money. In fact, Price offered to provide last meals for free, but was turned down by the state.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for md 2836-Edit.jpg
A local man’s hung jury trial highlights that children are more than capable of making false accusations of sexual abuse. San Antonio, Texas resident Vaughn Ernesto Manibog was accused by a 13-year-old of inappropriately touching her after supplying her with cocaine and alcohol. During the trial, the defense attorney provided evidence that the teen bragged about the allegations on her MySpace page. In addition, Manibog had an alibi for the weekend that the alleged abuse took place. The girl’s brother is currently serving probation for falsely accusing a teacher of sexual assault. Manibog’s case ended in a mistrial. The judge in this case also allowed another alleged victim to testify, although Mr. Manibog was not indicted on charges against her.

This is neither an isolated incident nor a strictly local occurrence. All over the nation, more and more people are facing false accusations of sexual misconduct against children. In May of this year felony molesting charges against a Pensacola, FL, music teacher were dropped when a Child Protection Team determined that the 10-year-old accuser made up the story. According to a statement by the accused, he expressed dismay over the fact that nobody believed him, even with the lack of evidence. More recently, a couple in Orange County, NY, filed a suit against the county and the local school district over false child abuse accusations. Their lawsuit is a rare event in the face of false allegations.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

United States Magistrate Judge Robert L. Pitman has been nominated as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas. There are seven separate offices in the district, which encompasses 68 counties and serves about 6.5 million people. The main office is located in San Antonio, with branch offices in Austin, Del Rio, Midland, El Paso, Waco, Alpine, and Pecos. Judge Pitman was recommended for United States Attorney in 2009, nominated by President Barack Obama on June 27, 2011, confirmed by the United States Senate on September 26, 2011, and will serve for a four year term after being sworn in.

Born in Fort Worth and now living in Austin, Judge Pitman received his B.S. from Abilene Christian University and his J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. From 1988 until 1989 he was a Law Clerk in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was the Assistant United States Attorney from 1990 until 2003. In 2001 he served as the interim United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, and from 2001 until 2003 he was the Deputy United States Attorney. He became the Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in 2003.

Judge Pitman has received commendations from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the United States Secret Service, the Department of State, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Furthermore, he is the founding president of the Lloyd Lochridge American Inns of Court in Austin, a board member for the Heritage Society of Austin, has memberships on the United Way Inclusiveness Task Force and on the Hill Country Ride for AIDS Production Team, and serves on the Board of Directors of United Cerebral Palsy.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The legal system in the State of Texas has come under fire lately for their inconsistencies. Two recent cases highlight the unstable nature within the courts. The state takes a hard-line on criminals, but are citizens actually getting fair trials? San Antonio, Texas has come under scrutiny in the past as well for executing an innocent man, Ruben Cantu. Currently, there are 23 inmates on death row from Bexar County.

Steven Michael Woods Jr. was executed on September 13, 2011. A drifter with no prior record, he was the 10th person put to death in the state of Texas this year. He was convicted of capital murder in 2002 for the 2001 deaths of a man and woman in The Colony, TX, located in North Dallas. Woods and a co-defendant (Marcus Rhodes) were tried for the deaths. Woods admitted he was at the scene, but insisted that he did not do the actual killings. There was no physical or DNA evidence linking Woods to the murder. Woods’ conviction was based primarily on witnesses’ testimonies. Witnesses were not present at the murders and based their testimonies on conversations they had heard. Rhodes, who admitted to shooting and stabbing the victims, pleaded guilty to avoid a trial. Backpacks belonging to the victims were found in Rhodes’ car and the guns used were found at the home of Rhodes’ parents. Rhodes, who admitted to doing the actual killings, is serving a life sentence in prison while Woods, who did not murder anyone, was executed.

The case against Woods’ was primarily based on Texas’ Law of Parties (Texas Penal Code Section 7.02). The law states that a person can be held criminally responsible by aiding and abetting a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill. In other words, a person can be convicted of guilt by association, even if they did not have the intent or knowledge that a murder was going to be committed.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

handcuffs.jpgOn September 12, 2011, Julie Navejar, a San Antonio, Texas teenager who left her daughter at a west side fire station in 2009 pleaded no contest in the 289th District Court. Pursuant to her plea deal that was arranged by her criminal defense attorney, the State will not ask the judge to sentence her for more than 12 years in prison. She is applying for deferred adjudication, which if the judge grants her application for deferred and she completes the probationary period, she will not have a final conviction on her record. The prosecutor says she will be opposing her request for deferred adjudication. Navejar will officially receive her sentence in November of this year. Although she was only 16 years old when the incident occurred, the juvenile court judge certified to allow her to stand trial as an adult.

The teen’s boyfriend, Ramiro de la Rosa, is still awaiting trial. It is alleged that the boyfriend physically abused the child before they left the lifeless infant at the fire station. De la Rosa told police that days before the baby died he would slap her and choke her when she would not stop crying. The teen girl admitted during an interview that she was addicted to heroin and did not care for the child properly. Navejar’s defense attorney explained to the court during the hearing that her boyfriend would inject her with heroin and force her to prostitute herself. He would also physically abuse her as well.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

iphone.jpg
Governor Rick Perry signed several bills into law that will impact the San Antonio area and surrounding communities, Bexar county, and Texas. The regular 82nd legislative session ended on May 30, 2011, and the following Senate Bill took effect on September 1, 2011. The following summary of the law concerns the Penal Code, the Family Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Family Code, and the Education Code. This new law, and all Texas laws, can be located at the Texas Constitution and Statutes website. As with all new laws, the changes made apply only to offenses committed on or after the effective date.

SB 407, Relating to the creation of the offense of electronic transmission of certain visual material depicting a minor and to certain educational programs concerning the prevention and awareness of that offense. Penal Code Sections 37.09 and 43.26 amended, and Section 43.261 added. Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 6 and Articles 38.45, 39.15, 42.12, 45.0215 and 45.0216 amended, and Articles 6.09 and 45.061 added. Family Code Sections 51.03, 51.08, 51.13, 58.003, 59.004, and 61.002 amended, and Section 54.0404 added. Education Code Section 37.218 added.

Previously, minors who were convicted of “sexting” (sending sexually explicit material via electronic means) would be tried as adults under pornography laws. The term “sexting” has recently made it into the Oxford Dictionary. The consequences for the minor could have been a possible felony conviction and registration as sexual offenders, which would have resulted in a lifetime of negative stigmatisms. Under the new law, the punishments more accurately fit the crimes and take into account a defendant’s impressionable age and whether it is their first conviction.

The new law uses a tiered system and minors are to be charged with misdemeanors. Individuals who are 17 years of age and younger can be tried for both the promotion and the possession of sexting material. Minors facing their first conviction of sexting will be charged with a Class C misdemeanor (maximum fine of $500). A second offense is a Class B misdemeanor (up to 180 days in jail and maximum fine of $2000) and a third offense is a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and maximum fine of $4000).

There are several requirements associated with the new law. County court judges are required to take a minor’s plea in an open court. Parent(s) of the minor are required to be in attendance in the court. All records are to be expunged on the 17th birthday of the minor if they have been convicted of only one sexting offense. For cases punishable by fines only, the case will be transferred to juvenile court. If the defendant is convicted and required to complete an educational program, the defendant and/or the parents are held financially responsible for any costs. The courts are allowed to seal the records of minors who attend and complete an educational program.

In addition, the new law requires the Texas School Safety Center, in cooperation with the Office of the Attorney General, develop the program for the psychological, social and legal consequences to be used by Texas school districts to educate students. The program must be written by January 1, 2012, and updated each year. The program will be available beginning the 2012-2013 school year. Each school district will decide what grade level is appropriate for introduction.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Governor Rick Perry signed several bills into law that will impact the San Antonio area indigent criminal defense system and surrounding communities, Bexar county, and Texas. The regular 82nd legislative session ended on May 30, 2011, and the following House Bill will take effect on September 1, 2011. The following summary of the law concerns the Government Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Local Government Code. This new law, and all Texas laws, can be located at the Texas Constitution and Statutes website. As with all new laws, the changes made apply only to offenses committed on or after the effective date.

HB 1754, Relating to the reorganization of powers and duties among agencies in this state that provide representation to indigent defendants in criminal cases and to the reorganization of funding sources for indigent defense. Subtitle F, Title 2, Government Code, is amended by adding Chapter 79. Section 71.001, Government Code, is amended. Section 78.052(b), Government Code, is amended. Section 78.056(b), Government Code, is amended. Section 81.054(c), Government Code, is amended. Section 402.035(c), Government Code, is amended. Article 26.04, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by amending Subsections (a), (d), and (f) and adding Subsection (f-1). The heading to Article 26.044, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended. Article 26.044, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by amending Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m) and adding Subsections (b-1) and (c-1). Chapter 26, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended. Chapter 26, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended. Articles 26.05(a), (c), and (d), Code of Criminal Procedure, are amended. Section 11(a), Article 42.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended. Section 133.107, Local Government Code, is amended. The following are repealed: (1) Article 26.05(i), Code of Criminal Procedure; (2) Section 71.0351, Government Code; and (3) Subchapter D, Chapter 71, Government Code.

The Texas House Bill sets up the Indigent Defense Commission. This new state agency replaces the Task Force on Indigent Defense, it becomes a permanent standing Commission of the Texas Judicial Council. While the new Commission will remain administratively attached to the Office of Court Administration, it will maintain an independent budget and must prepare and submit its own Legislative Appropriations Requests. The Commission will be made up of eight ex officious members and five appointive members. All powers, staff, property, and appropriations will be transferred from the abolished Task Force to the established Commission.
Continue reading

Contact Information
1800 McCullough Ave.
San Antonio, TX 78212
Phone: (210) 255-8525
Fax: (210) 223-3248

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, The Law Office of Dayna L. Jones
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design