The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals has granted me the opportunity to present formal Oral Arguments on a felony DWI case in which my client was convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. At trial, during which I was not yet his lawyer, the main evidence of my client’s intoxication came from a warrantless blood draw, revealing that his BAC was over the legal limit. Just a few months after my client’s trial, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for an individual’s blood to be drawn during a DWI arrest without a warrant—even if it was the individual’s third DWI. At the time of my client’s arrest, however, Texas law allowed the police to draw a person’s blood without a warrant if that person had two or more prior DWI convictions. However, due to the fact that the Supreme Court’s ruling occurred while my client’s case was pending appeal, I’m arguing that this ruling should apply to his case so that his conviction is overturned and he can be retried without the tainted evidence. The interesting issue on appeal is that because the trial attorneys did not object to the admission of the blood evidence, no error was preserved. Usually, objections are necessary to present an appellate issue because appellate courts require that the trial judge had an opportunity to make a ruling. I plan to fiercely argue that even though the error was not preserved, it represents such a fundamental miscarriage of justice that the appellate court should still reverse the conviction.
The blog of Chris Perri Law, written by Chris Perri and Shannon Perri. Read the latest in exciting cases where justice is served.
Filtering by Tag: austin DWI lawyer
A recent ruling by the Third Court of Appeals of Texas states that a life sentence can be a reasonable punishment for a third DWI felony conviction.
In 2012 a woman in San Marcos was arrested and convicted for her third felony DWI—her sixth DWI conviction total. The case was tried in front of Hays County Judge Jack Robison, who found her guilty with a punishment of life in prison. The woman’s attorneys attempted to appeal this sentence, arguing that life in prison for a DWI violates the Eight Amendment—a cruel and unusual punishment. However, a three-judge panel of the Third Court of Appeals upheld Judge Robison’s sentence, holding that she had a dangerous pattern of behavior and was a habitual offender. (For more about the case, click here.)
“Though saddening that this woman got to this point, I don’t necessarily believe the sentence was a violation of the Eighth Amendment,” Chris Perri says. “I do, however, feel this highlights the importance of connecting first- and second-time DWI offenders to the appropriate resources and working with the prosecution to incentivize defendants to seek rehabilitation. I don’t know the details or history of this case, but I can’t help but wonder if in some way the system failed her.”
Professional drug and alcohol treatment is not a 100% guarantee for relapse prevention, but it definitely can help shift the odds in one’s favor. That’s why Chris Perri Law tries to find the best legal outcomes for its clients that lead to life successes and reductions of repeat-offenses. When appropriate, part of his services include linking clients to community resources or advocating for clients to be referred to the Mental Health Court.
“If we don’t look at the whole person—his or her story—nothing’s going to change,” Chris Perri says.
This sad case proves that having a strong legal advocate who cares about your future and wellbeing is crucial. If you or someone you know is in need, call Chris Perri Law at (512)917-4378 today.
Recently, The National Transportation Safety Board released an official recommendation for all states to lower the legal alcohol driving limit to a .05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Currently, the blood alcohol legal level is .08. See the chart below to see how these limits actually translate to individuals’ alcohol consumption.
At Chris Perri Law, we believe that lowering the legal limit would be a mistake and lead to injustice. “I think it dilutes the standard for intoxication,” Chris Perri says. “There is about a .02 margin of error on these breath tests. People that aren’t drunk and even had only one beer could register over the legal limit.” According to Chris, this would cause even more people to refuse to cooperate with police officers, as it puts those who have just had one drink at risk of severe legal consequences. In fact, Chris believes that raising the legal limit would actually lead to safer roads, as then the crime would be more stigmatized by our community. At present, Chris feels it is too easy for anyone to get a DWI, and if the limit was lower, it would seen as even less of a big deal to have been convicted of a DWI. To Chris, it is just not okay for someone who registered at a .08 BAC to be facing the same charge as some registered at, say, a .14. Currently those arrested with a very high BAC actually benefit from the fact that they are lumped together with those just barely over the limit—the community sees all these crimes as one.
Another concern is that the police are under pressure to arrest anyone who has possibly had one drink for their own liability reasons. If they let someone go and that person has an accident, the city could be sued. However, this leads to innocent, law-abiding citizens spending nights in jail, carrying criminal records, and causing additional tax money to be spent on the criminal justice system. Further, if the BAC limit was say, .12, then when someone is arrested at this BAC, there would be no question that the person was drunk and needs a steep punishment. Currently, having a DWI is not a major stigma because the population understands that even those who aren’t drunk can end up with an arrest.
The National Transportation Safety Board states that more than 100 countries around the world have adopted a .05 BAC legal limit, and that this had led to fewer alcohol-related accidents. However, what is unfair about this comparison is that in these other countries, readily-accessible alternative transportation options exist. Chris Perri believes that in cities in like San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City there is absolutely no reason to ever drive after drinking alcohol. Yet, in Austin, we lack a viable public transportation system. A much better way to spend our tax dollars would be on developing better transportation options – not prosecuting individuals with a .05 BAC.
A forgotten element in this debate is how lowering the legal BAC would adversely affect the indigent population. Those with a lower socio-economic status are less likely to have funds for a taxi service. Also, if arrested this population often does not have ability to pay for a private attorney, so they must rely on a court-appointed attorney, which can be a bit of a crapshoot. Let’s not forget, court-appointed services are also paid with our taxes. Furthermore, giving more people criminal records, especially those already facing hardship, does not help anyone, but instead harms our entire community. Having a criminal record makes getting a job harder and also increases one’s likelihood of repeating the crime, as one’s sense of identity begins to shift due to the community’s label of that person as a “criminal.”
At Chris Perri Law, we believe strongly in finding ways to reduce accidents related to drunk-driving. However, Chris feels that by making a DWI more stigmatized and also offering improved public transportation options are much better ways to focus our efforts than punishing those for driving after just one drink.
We’d love to hear what you think, too. Let us know in the comment section.