An assault and battery charge can result in serious consequences for
any defendant. You may face an extended prison sentence and be forced to
pay excessive fines.
Justified or not, being charged with assault is a serious matter you should not take lightly.
An Assault is an offense against another person or persons. The various forms of Assault in Texas are set forth in Chapter 22
of the Texas Penal Code. Depending on the specific facts and
circumstances of any given case, an assault charge can be anything from
a fine only Misdemeanor up to a Felony
Assault charge which could result in a lengthy prison sentence and/or a
hefty fine.
Our attorneys are intimately familiar with all facets of criminal defense and may help clients with the following:
Work to get the charges dropped or lowered
Interview police, involved parties, and any possible witnesses to expose any lies or exaggerations
Make sure that no evidence against our client was obtained illegally
Conduct a thorough pre-trial investigation
Employ a private investigator, ballistics expert,
polygraphist, or any other experts that may be able to help strengthen
our client’s defense
Obtain expert witnesses to testify on behalf of our clients
Negotiate with prosecutors to make sure our clients face the minimum possible penalties
If you have been accused of a crime, please contact us today for a
free consultation with an aggressive and resourceful criminal defense
attorney.
We will work tirelessly to ensure the best possible outcome for your
case. Call (713)224 - 3967 for a free consultation or visit www.texasassaultattorney.com for more information.
Mitigation specialists can play a crucial role in legal defense, particularly in capital cases. They can provide defense attorneys with professional analysis, investigative information, key evidence and experts needed to testify regarding
circumstances presented in the case. A mitigation specialist will seek to uncover as much background information as possible regarding the defendant in order to inform the jury and make recommendations to the court during the sentencing phase.
While backgrounds of mitigation specialists vary, most have a four-year degree in criminal justice, psychology, social work, sociology, journalism or anthropology. They may have a network of professionals including forensic
psychiatrists and psychologists, substance abuse treatment providers,
forensic accountants, forensic computer analysts and others.
Since attorneys often lack both the time and expertise to supervise the investigative process, they instead rely on these final reports submitted when
preparing for court. As such, a mitigation specialist needs to prove his
or her competence in all phases of the job before the defense team will
extend an offer. The goal of the mitigation report is to provide a truthful accounting to
the judge or jury of how did this defendant come to commit the crime.
It is not meant to justify the crime, rather to provide a comprehensive
explanation of how the individual came to be where they are, and to
point out how their limited choices and past personal experiences
contributed to the situation.
The most effective use of a mitigation specialist is to include them
right from the beginning of the case as part of the defense team. A
comprehensive mitigation report takes extensive research and
investigation. Time is needed to identify, request, collect and review
documentation of the defendant’s early life, including medical,
educational, mental health, judicial and incarceration records.
Investigations include interviews of family members and other key
contacts.
If you have been accused of a crime, please contact us today
at 713.224.3967 or visit www.parnhamandmcwilliams.com for a free consultation with an aggressive and resourceful criminal
defense attorney. We will work tirelessly to ensure the best possible
outcome for your case.
Erin Burnett of CNN's "Up Front" program interviews criminal defense attorney George Parnham and psychotherapist Robi Ludwig about possibilities of the insanity defense as applied in the case of Ebony Wilkerson. Wilkerson has been arrested and charged with 3 counts of attempted murder after driving a minivan carrying her three young children into the ocean surf off Florida.
Bystanders and officers helped rescue 32-year-old Ebony Wilkerson and her children, ages 3, 9 and 10, from their minivan as it was almost submerged on Daytona Beach.
Hours before driving into the ocean, Wilkerson had talked about demons when she left her sister's house in Daytona Beach. Her sister called Daytona Beach police, who later stopped Wilkerson and noted that she "...was suffering from some form of mental illness, but she was lucid and did not provide any signs that she met Baker Act requirements". The Florida Mental Health Act, commonly known as the Baker Act, allows authorities to involuntarily take people into custody if they seem to be a threat to themselves.
Conrad Barrett, 27, has been charged with a federal hate crime for allegedly breaking a 79-year-old man's jaw in what authorities described as a racist take on the "knockout game." The victim suffered two jaw fractures and was hospitalized for several days, the complaint said. Barrett's attorney, George Parnham, raised the issue of his client's mental health in court, saying his client has been diagnosed as bipolar and was not on his medication at the time of the attack. Parnham could not say whether his client carried out the attack, but, "mental health issues definitely played a part in anything that occurred." Barrett "is very sorry for this person," Parnham said, adding that he and his client haven't had much opportunity to discuss the facts of the case.
In Florida v. Jardines, the Supreme Court ruled that a “sniff test” by a drug detection dog at the front door of a home constituted an unreasonable “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In that case, the Miami-Dade police received a “crime stoppers” tip that Mr. Jardines’ home was being used as a marijuana grow house. The police set up surveillance outside of his home and brought a drug detection dog to the porch of his residence. Only after the handler of the dog notified the detective that the dog had a positive alert for the odor of marijuana did the detective obtain a search warrant.
Consequently, the police searched his home, discovered the marijuana plants and arrested Mr. Jardines. After being charged and convicted of marijiuana trafficking, Jardines argued that the sniff test constituted an illegal search without probable cause and thus the evidence should be deemed inadmissible. The trial court granted Jardine’s motion to suppress the evidence, but the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the search was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. The state appealed the case and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Florida Supreme Court’s decision by a 5-4 margin along ideological lines. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the court, joined by Kagan, Thomas, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion was focused on a citizen’s property rights rather than the right to privacy. The Court argued that at the heart of the Fourth Amendment stands “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
The Court conceded that police officers have the right to engage a homeowner in a “knock and talk” for the purpose of gathering evidence without a warrant as homeowners have reasonable expectations that the public will approach their door. However, Scalia pointed out that homeowners do not license visitors to “explor[e] the front pant with a metal detector” or the police to “peer into the house through binoculars with impunity.”
The Court determined that bringing a drug detection dog onto a person’s property to obtain evidence without a warrant was an unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Although the majority opinion did not address whether Jardines’ privacy was implicated by the search, Justice Kagan wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor, arguing that both his privacy and property rights were implicated. The concurring opinion analogized drug detection dogs to the high-powered binoculars referenced in the majority opinion and argued that where a device is not “in general public use,” and is used to obtain evidence in one’s home, it violates a persons “minimal expectation of privacy.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defines the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If you have been subjected to an unreasonable search by law enforcement, contact Parnham & McWilliams today at (713) 224-3967 or visit www.parnhamandmcwilliams.com. for a free consultation. We are dedicated to protecting your Constitutional Rights.
According to crash report data compiled by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)Texas leads the nation in DWI fatalities, and although drunk driving accidents account for only about 4% of traffic accidents statewide, TxDOT reports
that DWI accidents were responsible for 1,099 deaths making them the leading cause of death on Texas roadways.
According to the same statistics Harris County led the state in DWI
Accidents, totaling more than 2,809 reported alcohol-related crashes in
2012. Houston alone had a total of 1,662 reported drunk
driving accidents and 94 fatalities in 2012.
In Texas, anyone who causes an auto accident while driving while intoxicated (DWI)
is facing very serious criminal charges. Convictions will mean felony charges and may result in 10 to 20 years in state prison if the accident resulted in serious
injury or death to another passenger or driver.
The two specific charges involved with vehicle accidents (including watercraft, aircraft and amusement rides) that involve impaired drivers are Intoxication Assault and Intoxication Manslaughter.
Intoxication Assault Texas Penal Code 49.07 states that a person commits an offense if the person, by
accident or mistake, while operating a motor vehicle in a public place
while intoxicated, by reason of that intoxication causes serious bodily
injury to another. Serious Bodily Injury refers to any injury that
creates a substantial risk of death, causes serious permanent
disfigurement or causes "protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
bodily member or organ."
Intoxication Assault is a third degree felony and punishable by 2 to 10
years in prison, fines of up to $10,000 and up to 600 hours of community
service. Texas law also requires any repeat intoxicated assault offenders to install an ignition interlock device on their primary vehicle: you are required to blow into this
device before you can start your car, and if it detects alcohol the vehicle will not start. You will not be allowed to drive any vehicle that is not
equipped with this device.
If you are charged with Intoxication Assault, the prosecution must only show beyond a reasonable
doubt that you were intoxicated and caused serious bodily injury to
another person; they do not need to provide any proof that you intended
to hurt another person. Even though the other parties injuries could
have been the result of an accident or mistake, you can still be
charged with this serious offense.
Intoxication Manslaughter is a second degree felony,
punishable by 2 to 20 years in state prison, fines of up to $10,000 and
up to 800 hours of community service. Intoxication Manslaughter differs from regular Manslaughter or Vehicular Manslaughter
charges, which require some evidence of a reckless act or reckless driving: by
the mere act of operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated the law automatically presumes that you are acting in a reckless manner. However, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's
intoxication was the cause of the other person’s death.
Intoxicated Assault and Intoxicated Manslaughter are extremely serious charges. If you have been in an accident and have been charged with impaired driving, you need an experienced criminal defense lawyer.
Contact Parnham & McWilliams today at
(713) 224-3967 or visit www.parnhamandmcwilliams.com for more information.
Section 724.011 of the Texas State Transportation Code states that anyone who is arrested for Texas DWI: "is deemed to have consented, subject to this chapter, to
submit to the taking of one or more specimens of the person's breath or
blood for analysis to determine the alcohol concentration or the
presence in the person's body of a controlled substance, drug, dangerous
drug, or other substance."
This is known as "Implied Consent", and as mentioned earlier it essentially means that by the mere act of accepting a Texas State driver's license you have automatically consented to take a blood alcohol level test if the police deem it necessary.
Based on the implied consent clause, Texas (and many other states) have begun implementing what are known as "No Refusal" weekends. This program is a law enforcement strategy that allows jurisdictions to obtain search warrants for blood samples from any drivers who are suspected to be impaired but refuse roadside breath or blood tests. During these events, usually scheduled around holidays such as Labor Day or New Year's Eve the police, prosecutors and judges streamline the warrant acquisition process in order to obtain blood draw warrants.
During these "No Refusal" events the District Attorney’s Office usually stations staff members at centralized locations in order to immediately consult with the arresting officer. They collect the probable cause information used in the arrest and rubberstamp a warrant which is immediately faxed to a waiting judge. If there is any probable cause that warrant will be signed and returned, the suspect is taken to an on-site blood draw room and a nurse or phlebotomist will draw the suspect’s blood. If the suspect is uncooperative or combatant, officers will restrain the suspect while the blood draw is occurring.
This rubber-stamp process is prone to several types of legal errors; there may be an omission or a mistake on the warrant, the
warrant may not meet requirements for accuracy. There may also be issues with the probable cause as determined by the arresting officer. If you are facing Texas DWI charges, you need to hire a skilled
criminal defense attorney to help you navigate the legal system without
jeopardizing your rights. Contact Parnham & McWilliams today at
(713) 224-3967 or visit www.parnhamandmcwilliams.com for more information.
Depending on the circumstances, we may be able to save your license.
