SA Criminal Defenders

DEFENDER DEFENDER SAN ANTONIO

A Publication of the San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association

VOL. XV ISS. I | SPRING 2014

SACDLA salutes Victor Valdes for his excellent advocacy in Aviles v. State AFTER THE BALL Warren Warren Wolf Wolf

HOW TO SUBPOENA A GOVERNMENT AGENT Elizabeth Elizabeth A. A. O'Connell O'Connell

HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS — TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE HAS GONE ELECTRONIC Anne Anne More More Burnham Burnham

OFFICERS

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENTS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Jorge Aristotelidis President

Jay Norton Michael Gross Jeff Mulliner John “Bud” Ritenour Adam Kobs George Taylor Stephanie Stevens Jim Greenfield Michael S. Raign John A. Convery Ernest Acevedo, III Ronald P. Guyer Mark Stevens George Scharmen Cynthia Hujar-Orr

Anne Burnham Robert Barrera Edward A. Bartolomei Stephanie Boyd Philip Bozzo, Jr. John F. Carroll Kerrisa Chelkowski David Christian Andrew DelCueto Mario Del Prado Loraine Efron Joseph Esparza Don Flanary John J. Fox Paul Goeke Julie K. Hasdorff Nicholas “Nico” LaHood John Longoria Michael McCrum Pat Montgomery Jefferson Moore Joel Perez Robin Teague Aissa Strickland

Robert Featherston Vice President Warren Wolf Secretary Patricia Jay Treasurer Christopher Simpkins Editor, The Defender Trisha Morales Padia Executive Director

DIRECTORS EMERITUS Charles Butts Anthony Nicholas

THE SAN ANTONIO CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 831206, San Antonio, Texas 78283-1206 (210) 501-2916 | sacdla.com

Features

07

09

13

17

Warren Wolf

Elizabeth A. O'Connell

Anne More Burnham

George Scharmen

After the Ball

How to Subpoena a Government Agent

Hold On to Your Hats Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure has Gone Electronic

Victor Valdes Wins for Mr. Aviles, and for Us, in the United States Supreme Court

Columns

03

04

05

Adam Kobs

Christopher W. Simpkins

Robert Featherston

HOMERUNS

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

Extras

06 SACLDA'S UPCOMING CLEs

19

23

The San Antonio Criminal D Lawyers Association 24

OUT & ABOUT

SACDLA APPLICATION

SACDLA MEMORIALIZES

P.O. Box 831206 San Antonio, Texas 78283-1206 Telephone: (210) 501-2916 Facsimile: (210) 885-7714

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION *NAME:

G Mr. G Ms.

G Mrs.

G Dr.

G Professor

G Other

Homeruns

Adam Kobs Associate Editor

Kristen Mulliner and Past SACDLA President Jeff Mulliner tried an Arson case on February 3-5 in the 187th. Her client was accused of setting his truck on fire using a molotov cocktail made of a plastic bottle and shop towel. The State’s evidence included documents introduced to show that her client was “upside down” with regards to equity on the vehicle, had tried to buy two separate vehicles with insufficient assets to do so and gave inconsistent statements to law enforcement. The Fire Marshall testified that her client continuously gave inconsistent statements about the evenings events as well as his financial motive to set his vehicle on fire. He also testified that he found the same shop towels used in the incendiary device in her client’s garage. The State also called the body shop manager who the State expected to say that her client was overly interested in having his vehicle totaled out.

She had spoken to him pre-trial and knew he was not of that opinion. In sort of a risky move, she did not cross the Fire Marshall because she felt like there was so much that the State failed to offer it would not benefit her in any way to inquire about additional facts. Instead, she argued in close that there was a wholly insufficient investigation and very conflicting testimony from the State’s witnesses. The Fire Marshall failed to collect, test or photograph the States’ smoking gun, the shop towel, because he was “tired.” The investigators failed to follow up on statements made by witnesses about where her client had been prior to the incident. The officers who arrived at the scene offered, refreshingly, completely opposite testimony regarding her client's behavior and responses at the scene. The body shop manager testified that her client had the same concerns that every other person with smoke damage had. After deliberating for

10 minutes, the jury came back not-guilty.

Chad P. Van Brunt and John Hunter got “not guilty” on two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Blanco County on March 20. The alleged victims were the sheriff’s daughter and her boyfriend.

They won in spite of the fact that half the jury panel knew the sheriff personally, the investigation was conducted by the sheriff’s office, and there was some major “hometowning” by the prosecution. Chad is so proud of this one. John Hunter was a huge help.

Pat Montgomery got acquittal in the 379th.

a

manslaughter

Monica Guerrero and Linda Corley got a mistrial against Tanner for Texas in the 186th because of a ‘mistake’ he made in voir dire.

Kristin Dow and George Carroll got a not guilty on a DWI 0.22 blood test in Seguin.

It was a big win!

SAN ANTONIO DEFENDER SPRING 2014

4

Letter from the Editor

As you may already be aware, SACDLA counts amongst its members many of the finest legal minds from San Antonio and the surrounding areas. Also, SACDLA counts amongst it membership a very diverse group of individuals, with varied perspectives, life experiences and beliefs, who all share a common bond of dedication to the principles embodied by the Bill of Rights and to the zealous and effective defense of individuals accused of criminal offenses. The diversity of perspectives amongst our members is great, and SACDLA is truly a unique organization due to our shared purpose and commitment to zealous representation.

SACDLA serves an essential role in the Bexar County criminal justice system and countless hours are expended by our members in making all of the services SACDLA provides a reality. To that end, I encourage you to get actively involved with SACDLA, as there are many ways you can help the organization. If you would like to get involved with The Defender, please contact me or another member of the editorial board and let us know.

As we all know, providing the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitution to all individuals who the government seeks to label a criminal is not an easy task, and there are many unique variables and inherently stressful situations that come with the territory. SACDLA is built on a foundation of members helping similarly situated attorneys, who like us practice criminal law, and The Defender seeks to educate, inform and help SACDLA’s members by providing content that will help our members better defend their clients. SACDLA and The Defender exist because we as criminal defense attorneys must have a resource and forum through which we can effectively communicate, share knowledge, and

coordinate responses and address unjust or wasteful policies that affect us all. SACDLA exists and is as strong as it is because as criminal lawyers we have to be united in our dedication and purpose; SACDLA succeeds because countless members take time out of their already busy lives to help others. This is your organization, and this is an exciting time for SACDLA. I urge all members to think about how they could dedicate some of their time each month to making it even stronger Christopher Simpkins Editor-in-Chief, The San Antonio Defender chris@csimpkinslaw.com Associate Editors: Adam Kobs Robert Featherston Warren Wolf Loraine Efron

Christopher Simpkins Editor-in-Chief

s

President's Message

Well, another year has passed. Jorge A. has done a magnificent job as SACDLA’s President. Now its time to rotate and I have assumed to position as President.

Robert Featherston President

For the next year, we have a great team to serve the membership. Warren Wolf will be Vice-President, Patricia Jay – Secretary, Michael McCrum – Treasurer, Christopher Simpkins – Editor of the Defender and Trisha Morales Padia – our Executive Director.

We are here to serve you. But, we need your help. Please let us know of issues that you would like us to pursue. We also need your participation on the listserv, website and Defender Magazine. If you run into an issue, COMMUNICATE! Use the listserv, submit transcripts of your favorite expert for the website write an article for The Defender. You help yourself by helping your fellow defense attorneys!

We will continue with the free Monthly CLE’s, biweekly appellate briefs and our major CLE events: the Summer CLE and Nuts & Bolts. All of our CLE’s will have a Bexar County flavor to them.

We will have a few more get-togethers for our junior members to meet those of us who have been around for a while.

I hope this year to continue to improve our relationship with our sister attorney organizations, Commissioners Court and making the courthouse more defense attorney friendly.

This is your Organization, and we look forward to serving you!

Robert H. Featherston President

SAN ANTONIO DEFENDER SPRING 2014

SACDLA's Upcoming CLE’s Bi-Monthly Trial Strategy Luncheons Liberty Bar 1111 S. Alamo St,, San Antonio, TX, 78210 Phone: (210) 227-1187 Monthly CLE Luncheons Held on the last Friday of each month.

Trial Strategies CLE August 1st 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Central Jury Room

6

Warren Wolf

Supreme Court building photo by Eric E. Johnson.

SAN ANTONIO DEFENDER SPRING 2014

8

It’s a year since I stood at the lecturn in the historic marble chamber that is the United States Supreme Court, and as I turn the page of the calendar to a new year it is an appropriate time to reflect on what was a very special year.

appearance. Others had offered similar compliments as I left that hallowed chamber. But it was the decision of the nine Justices that mattered and that decision was not expected until the end of the term before summer recess.

POST ARGUMENT – FEBRUARY 25, 2013

Teresa, Robin and I ate at the Supreme Court cafeteria. After a stop at the gift shop, we made our way to Reagan Airport and then to San Antonio.

After the bang of the gavel, the Chief Justice announced the case will be submitted.

Courteous exchanges between my “friend” Andrew Oldham, Assistant Texas Solicitor General and his associates were, I believe, sincere. Seth (Waxman) Bud (Ritenour) and Catherine (Carol), who sat at counsel table felt relieved and confident in the “spot on” delivery we all were pointing towards. I had delivered the performance of a lifetime.

Strangers who watched the argument approached me and offered their congratulations. The highest compliment came from Deputy Clerk Jameson who commented that he didn’t believe it was my first appearance before the Court. I have always held court personnel in highest regard. They have a particular insight into court proceedings and they know what is and isn’t good.

Of course, Teresa (my wife) and Robin (my daughter) were there. Robin was as ever proud of her Daddy. Teresa, who had sacrificed so much in her own way, got to witness the fruits of our collective labors.

After the case was set for submission, Teresa and Robin and I remained in the Supreme Court building. We went back to the clerk’s office to say goodbye to Mrs. Tycz, the deputy clerk who had been so encouraging. She congratulated me on my maiden

“THE LAW IS A JEALOUS MISTRESS” My property professor at St. Mary’s Law School told us that in our first year, and he was right. My calendar was bursting at the seams thanks to the local judges back home who gave me generous court recesses for four months of my calendar. The time had come to get back to the work at hand. But yet I still had that one special case. I started watching, the Supreme Court calendar for announcements. Like an expectant father, I had an interest in the outcome but had no control over the process or its timing.

MAY 28, 2013 Almost three months to the day, while I was sitting in the Bexar County Jail in the midst of a parole revocation hearing, I received a message on my iPhone from my co-counsel, Bud Ritenour, that we had won.

It was the crowning achievement of a 37-year career; a dream come true. It was likewivnning the Super Bowl, the World Series and the NBA Championship all rolled into one.

Coninued on page 12.

How to Subpoena a Government Agent

Compliance With Touhy Regulations for ICE, CBP, DEA and FBI

Elizabeth A. O'Connell Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Western District of Texas

If you seek the testimony of a federal government agent, whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), Customs and Border Protection (Border Patrol) (“CBP”), Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”), or Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)—and the Government does not plan to put that agent on the stand—you may soon find yourself up against so-called Touhy regulations. Understanding those regulations will either enable you to comply with them, so that you may successfully subpoena a government agent or help you make arguments to challenge the unfair application of Touhy regulations to your client’s case.

I. What are Touhy regulations?

The term “Touhy regulations” derives from the Supreme Court’s decision in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Regan, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). In Touhy, an inmate of the Illinois State Penitentiary sought the testimony of the agent in charge of the FBI in Chicago, seeking evidence in support of his argument that his for use in a federal habeas corpus case that his criminal conviction had been obtained by fraud. The agent refused to provide the information requested, citing a regulation promulgated by the Department of Justice under the authority of former 5 U.S.C. § 22 (now 5 U.S.C. § 301), which conferred upon the DOJ the privilege to refuse to produce records. The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional, and that the regulation was therefore a proper exercise of executive authority.

Following Touhy, the various executive agencies enacted regulations governing the release of information by subordinates, whether that information was sought in the form of testimony or documents, in re-

sponse to a demand or subpoena in a court case. Each executive agency has its own set of regulations. Thus, when seeking agent testimony, the first thing you must determine is precisely which executive agency you are dealing with. For federal criminal trials, the agencies you will most frequently seek testimony from will be DEA, FBI, ICE, and CBP. Each of these agencies is under the umbrella of a larger executive agency; the regulations pertinent to that agency will control how and from whom you make your demand.

II. How do you comply with Touhy regulations?

There are sometimes arguments to be made that you should not have to comply with Toughy regulations at all—these arguments are addressed below. But, often, the most practical course will be simply to comply with them. Indeed, at least with respect to some arguments, an attempt at compliance may be necessary before your objections will be heard. Below are discussions of how to comply with the most common regulations.

A. Department of Justice regulations The DEA and FBI both fall under the umbrella of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”).

Disclosure of documents and testimony by DOJ employees is covered by 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.21-16.26. Section 16.23 governs disclosure in cases where the United States is a party, which of course includes every criminal case. It provides that employees of the DOJ are authorized, after consultation with the “originating component” to “reveal and furnish to any person . . . such testimony,

SAN ANTONIO DEFENDER SPRING 2014

and relevant unclassified material, documents, or information secured by any attorney or investigator of the Department of Justice.” For a criminal case, the “originating component” is the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division. In deciding whether to make a disclosure, DOJ considers whether the disclosure is appropriate under the applicable rules of procedure and substantive law regarding privilege, and whether any of a number of special factors prohibiting disclosure are present in the case. When testimony is sought, “an affidavit, or if that is not feasible, a statement by the party seeking the testimony or by the party’s attorney setting forth a summary of the testimony sought must be furnished to the Department attorney handling the case or matter.”

These regulations mean that, in order to obtain the testimony of a DEA or FBI agent, an attorney must make a demand to the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division and provide a summary of the testimony sought to United States Attorney and to the Assistant United States Attorney handling the case. To satisfy this requirement, counsel should send a letter to the Assistant Attorney General, with copies to the United States Attorney and the Assistant United States Attorney handling the case. The letter should contain a summary of the testimony that is being. sought.

B. Department of Homeland Security regulations CBP and ICE both fall under the organizational umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Testimony by DHS employees is governed by 6 C.F.R. §§ 5.41-5.45.

Section 5.43 provides that “only the Office of

the General Counsel is authorized to receive and accept subpoenas, or other demands and requests directed to the Secretary, the Department, or any component thereof, or its employees, whether civil or criminal in nature.” Section 5.45 provides that “[i]f official information is sought, through testimony or otherwise, by a request or demand, the party seeking such release or testimony must . . . set forth in writing, and with as much specificity as possible, the nature and relevance of the official information sought.”

A demand for testimony by an ICE or CBP agent should therefore be addressed to the Office of General Counsel for DHS, with copies to the United States Attorney and the Assistant United States Attorney handling the case, and contain a summary setting forth the nature of the testimony sought and its relevance to the case.

While the DOJ regulations provide that a request under Touhy regulations should be accompanied by a brief summary, the DHS regulations require that a demand for testimony “set forth . . . with as much specificity as possible, the nature and relevance of the testimony sought.” As a practical matter, it is best to first submit a summary of the testimony sought – i.e., enough to give the reader the general idea of what is sought, without giving away your defense. For example, if you expect the agent to provide an alibi for your client, you don’t have to say that. You can simply state that you expect the agent to testify as to the whereabouts of your client on the day in question. After submitting a summary, contact the agency to which you are addressing the demand for testimony, and ask whether you have sufficiently complied. If the agency feels you have not sufficiently complied, submit a more detailed summary. Nevertheless,

10

the Government may move to quash your subpoena.

II. Is there a response to a motion to quash based on Touhy?

The Government may move to quash your subpoena. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 authorizes the quashing or modification of a subpoena, but only (1) on the motion of a party, (2) made promptly, (3) showing that compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.

At least one federal district court has held that the mere allusion to the Touhy regulations is insufficient to satisfy Rule 17. In United States v. Fuentes-Corrrea, 2013 WL 588892, *7 (D. Puerto Rico Feb. 13, 2013), the District of Puerto Rico held that “once a defendant follows the Touhy procedures, a court may compel attendance or production even if the Government refuses it.” Thus, the agency’s application of its regulations is subject to judicial review. In United States v.

Aponte-Sobrado, the same court reviewed the Government’s claim that the defendant had failed to comply with Touhy procedures, because the subpoena “fail[ed] to meet the specificity required by the Touhy regulations,” and concluded that the subpoena satisfied the requirements of the regulations.

These cases suggest that the question whether the the Touhy regulations are applicable is subject to judicial review; thus, if you have made an attempt to comply with Touhy, the Court may require the Government to comply with a subpoena even if the Government insists that its regulations prohibit it from doing so. However, if the Court grants the motion to quash, then it is time to

How to Subpoena a Government Agent

Compliance With Touhy Regulations for ICE, CBP, DEA and FBI Continued from page 10.

consider objecting to the application of the Touhy regulations.

III. Can you object to Touhy regulations?

If the Government or Court resists your request for witness testimony, or if compliance with Touhy regulations is not feasible, there are a few possible objections to the application of Touhy regulations. These include (a) that Touhy does not apply in criminal cases; (b) that Touhy regulations violate the right to compulsory process; and (c) that Touhy regulations violate the rules of reciprocal discovery. These arguments will be briefly laid out in the sections that follow. Whatever argument you may choose to make when the Court excludes your witnesses based on Touhy regulations, remember to preserve the objection for appeal. In order to preserve an objection to the exclusion of witness testimony, you must not only state the basis for your objection, but also make an offer of proof regarding the expected testimony of the witness you expected to call.

A. Touhy does not apply in criminal cases.

It may be possible to argue that Touhy regulations simply are not applicable in criminal cases. In Alexander v. FBI, District Judge Royce Lambreth of the District of Columbia concluded that “[t]he Supreme Court’s holding in Touhy is applicable only in cases where the United States is not a party to the original proceeding.” Judge Lambreth read Touhy narrowly, as “simply hold[ing] that a subordinate government official will not be compelled to testify or produce documents in private litigation.” In the Judge Lambreth’s view, Touhy was directed toward a concern about “private litigants seek[ing] to drag a

witness employed by the federal government or one of its agencies into court to offer some testimony on a particular party’s behalf.” While Judge Lambreth’s view seems persuasive, however, it is unlikely to gain much traction in the Fifth Circuit, in light of circuit precedent applying Touhy in cases where the United States is a party. The Fourth Circuit has also rejected the argument, in United States v. Soriano-Jarquin, 492 F.3d 495, 504 (4th Cir. 2007), a case dealing with Department of Homeland Security regulations.

B. Touhy regulations violate the defendant’s right to compulsory process.

You might also challenge Touhy regulations by arguing that their application violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. That question has been raised–but not fully resolved–in at least two cases. In United States v. Wallace, 32 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 1994), “the defendants contend[ed] that the trial court’s quashing of the subpoenas [to government agents] denied them a fair trial and the right to present evidence on their behalf and compel witnesses to testify.” The Fifth Circuit avoided directly addressing the question by holding first that the defendant failed to comply with the regulations. To the extent that it addressed a Sixth Amendment argument, it noted that the “necessity or value of the two agents’ testimony was questionable” and therefore held, “in the alternative[,] that the exclusion of the two witnesses may be upheld under the trial court’s power to control the trial and limit testimony that would be cumulative and marginally relevant.” In Soriano-Juaquin, the Fourth Circuit addressed the constitutional question in a similar matter, holding, in the first instance, that the defendant had not complied with regulations

and then concluding that the testimony sought was “wholly peripheral to the defendant’s case.”

These cases, while narrowing the Sixth Amendment argument, nevertheless leave open the possibility of raising a constitutional challenge where a defendant has attempted to comply with the regulations, but has had his subpoena quashed because his attempt is found deficient in some way.

There is also the possibility that the courts would look with more favor on a constitutional argument where the defendant’s rights are clearly prejudiced by the exclusion of the sought-after testimony.

C. Touhy regulations violate reciprocal discovery.

In United States v. Bahamonde, 445 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit, relying on Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (1973), held that the Department of Homeland Security regulations “violate[ ] due process by failing to provide reciprocal discovery.” The court concluded that it was unfair to require the defendant “to state with specificity the testimony he expected from [the agent]” while “the government was not required at any time to produce the evidence it expected to offer in rebuttal, either from [the agent] or anyone else.” It does not appear that any other circuit has addressed the argument that reciprocal discovery should limit the application of Touhy regulations in criminal cases. Accordingly, this issue remains open in the Fifth Circuit.

Touhy is an issue that will arise in any case in which you seek to call a government agent as a witness, but it is not an insurmountable obstacle to obtaining their testimony.

SAN ANTONIO DEFENDER SPRING 2014

12

After the Ball...

Continued from page 8.

Later that day I learned it was Justice Kennedy and not Justice Breyer who made the oral pronouncement in open court. It is custom that the Justice who is the author of the opinion makes the announcement. Ironically, Justice Breyer, who is a fellow Eagle Scout, was in the hospital recovering from a broken collar bone he incurred while riding his bicycle. Coincidentally, I had a major bicycle accident during my representation of Carlos. In 2009 I broke my hip which resulted in a total hip replacement. It was as if Justice Breyer and I were "joined at the hip," or scapula, as the case may be.

THE EXPRESS NEWS ARTICLE Craig Capitan, the courthouse beat reporter for our local newspaper, keeps his ear to the ground and is quick to get a story. We had discussed Carlos's case when Cert was granted. But the time was not ripe for such a story.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was coming up for oral argument, shortly after my case. Local attention was drawn more heavily to the Supreme Court.

When the decision came back favorably in Carlos’s case I became newsworthy. Craig immediately contacted me and interviewed me. The next day the story ran, “S. A. Lawyer A Success in the Supreme Court.”

RECOGNITION IN THE COMMUNITY After the story ran I started receiving congratulatory messages from friends, old and new.

STEVE SKINNER The one that stands out the most is my old Boy Scout friend, Steve Skinner. I had known Steve from our work in the local Boy Scout Council back in the 70’s. We had renewed our friendship in 2010 as we both were on staff at the centennial Boy Scout National Jamboree. We got together for lunch shortly thereafter. He told me that his future-son-in-law and he had talked about the fact that Steve knew someone who had appeared before the U. S. Supreme Court.

Steve told me that his son, who graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, had a question on one of his final exams regarding my case.

AL REITER Al Reiter, another good Scouting friend,

suggested that I speak to the San Antonio Breakfast Club, of which he is a member. I wasn’t quite sure how a bunch of retired businessmen would react to a criminal defense attorney who the court appointed to represent a condemned man sitting on death row.

I was pleased by their genuine interest in the process and my experience. They even extended to an invitation to join their club.

ney. I am now introduced by judges, lawyers and lay persons as the lawyer who went to the Supreme Court. Although I have returned to my regular case load, my life has been inexorably changed. I hope to stand as an inspiration to my peers, old and young, and in a peculiar way to myself. I will forever be able to say that I argued a case before the United States Supreme Court—and won.

And now, on to my next client.

RECOGNITION BY MY PEERS

Copyright

The accolades began to cascade down. The Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (TCDLA) named Bud and I as co-Percy Foreman Lawyers of the Year. The San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (SACDLA) followed suit naming us co-Defenders of the Year. We were also named by San Antonio Scene Magazine as one of San Antonio’s Best Criminal Defense Lawyers as selected by their peers. In addition I was selected for membership into the National Trial Lawyers Top 100 Trial Lawyers for 2013.

Printed with permission of the author

I wrote an initial story about my Supreme Court experience entitled “I Could Have Danced All Night,” which was published in TCDLA’s Voice and SACDLA’s Defender magazines.

PART OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY At last year’s Rusty Duncan Seminar, at which we received our lawyer of the year awards, I had the honor to meet the keynote speaker, Stetson Law School Dean Bruce Jacob. Dean Jacob is the last surviving participant of the landmark case, Gideon v. Wainwright. Clarence Earl Gideon is deceased. His lawyer Justice Abe Fortas is deceased. All of the nine Justices who heard the case are no longer living. The judge and the lawyers in Florida who were involved in the original case and its retrial are deceased as well.

We talked about the plight of the indigent and the “right to counsel” and how our cases are linked. We parted, agreeing to keep in touch. I sent him a link to my oral argument.

I had listened to the oral argument in Gideon in my preparation for my oral argument. He sent a reply email the following day telling me that he enjoyed my time at the lecturn.

“AFTER THE BALL” As Bud reminds me, going to the U. S. Supreme Court is not a destination but a jour-

Victor Valdes Wins for Mr. Aviles, and for Us, in the United States |Supreme Court Continued from page 18.

In light of the McNeely opinion, the District Attorney argued: “…if a warrantless blood draw is otherwise reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, then the existence of exigent circumstances is 'immaterial,' as the court of appeals concluded in this case.”

Again, the authorities take the position that the Legislature can authorize laws which circumvent the Fourth Amendment so long as the Legislature believes it is reasonable. The Supreme Court did not take long to reject the argument. It granted certiorari, reversed the Fourth Court decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of McNeely.

The case is not over, but now the Texas courts must listen to the very interesting and pleasant gentleman from San Antonio.

Hold onto Your Hats

Anne More Burnham

thE amEndEd tEXas rulEs of appEllatE procEdurE has gonE ElEctronIc

1. IntroductIon

By order, dated December 13, 2013, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals amended various Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (hereinafter “TRAP”), adopted some new rules and appendices, and repealed others.

The biggest change, perhaps, is the new requirement of e-filing appellate documents.

If you have visited the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s website lately, you have seen the following banner announcement: “Beginning January 1, 2014, except for good cause shown in a motion, all attorneys in civil and criminal cases are required to file all documents (except a document submitted under seal or subject to a motion to seal) with the Court through the eFileTexas.gov electronic filing system. Persons not represented by an attorney may eFile documents, but eFiling is not required.”

See http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us for information on e-filing and for a link to the amended TRAP. The e-filing requirement and amendments to TRAP, which became effective January 1, 2014, left even many veteran appellate attorneys scrambling to figure out how to file their briefs under the new rules. The learning curve is short as the new rules bring many changes, and e-filing is in full force. This article provides a nutshell, but by no means a complete recitation, of the 2014 changes to the appellate rules.1

2. an ovErvIEw of thE amEndEd tEXas rulEs of procEdurE

Attorney Contact Information Must Now Include Email Addresses: Several rules that require counsel to provide their contact information, such as designa-

tion of lead counsel and notice to the court of additional attorneys, were amended to include the requirement that an email address be provided. See TRAP 6 (pertaining to Representation by Counsel), TRAP 9 (pertaining to documents generally). See also TRAP 9.4 (g) (pertaining to Contents of the Cover and requiring that a party filing must include an email address, among other contact information, on any document cover).

appEllatE practIcE In tEXas Is offIcIally no longEr a “papEr” practIcE (for thE most part):

TRAP 9's title was amended from “Papers Generally,” to “Documents Generally.” See TRAP 9.

ElEctronIc sIgnaturEs:

A new subsection “c” was added to TRAP 9.1 to explain that an electronic document issued by a court or clerk is considered “signed” if it bears the electronic “/s/” signature, or an electronic or scanned image of a signature. TRAP. 9.1 ( c).

thE maIlBoX rulE now applIEs to dElIvEry By commErcIal carrIErs:

It used to be that your appellate brief was timely only if sent to the proper clerk, in a properly addressed envelope or wrapper, and mailed on or before the last day for filing by, only, the United States Postal Service. As of January 1, 2014, Rule 9.2 was amended to include delivery by “a commercial delivery service” under the mailbox rule. Prior to this recent change, many well-intending appellate lawyers who obtained a commercial carrier for the safe and expeditious delivery of their client’s brief have lost hours of sleep upon receiving notice from the Court that their briefs were untimely because the

“mailbox rule” did not apply to their commercial delivery.

(most) documEnts In a crImInal appEal wIll BE fIlEd ElEctronIcally:

TRAP 9.2 now requires attorneys in criminal cases to file electronically “except for good cause shown in a motion filed in the appellate court.” Pro se parties are not required to file electronically, but are permitted to do so. Likewise, documents filed under seal are excepted from the electronic filing requirement. Additionally an appellate court has discretion to allow paper filing upon a showing of good cause. TRAP 9.2 ( c).

a documEnt Is tImEly fIlEd If ElEctronIcally fIlEd BEforE mIdnIght on thE fIlIng dEadlInE:

This is good news for all the perfectionists (or procrastinators) who need those few extra hours to make the brief “just right” before filing. Now one can hit “send” anytime before midnight from the comfort of their home. See TRAP 9.2 ( c)(4). The document is considered to be filed “when transmitted to the filing party’s electronic service provider.”

If the document is transmitted on a weekend day or legal holiday, it will be considered filed on the next non-weekend or holiday day. If the document requires a motion and court order to permit the filing of the document, the document is considered filed upon the Court’s granting of the motion. Confirmation of filing will be sent by the electronic filing manager. TRAP 9.2 ( c) (6).

what happEns In thE EvEnt of a mEchanIcal faIlurE:

If the filing party experiences a technical failure or power outage which renders the filing

1. This article does not lend itself to explanation of the mechanics of creating an e-document or e-brief. However, on both the Texas Supreme Court http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us) and Court of Criminal Appeals (See http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us) websites, you can access a searchable “2014: Guide to Creating Electronic Appellate Briefs” by Blake A. Hawthorne.

This Guide provides detailed visual instruction on the mechanics involved and covers topics such as: the word processing systems that are compatible, which Adobe software is needed, necessary scanning tools, how to “bookmark” the body of the brief, how to hyperlink citations, making the document text-searchable, and much more.

TRAP 9.4 (j). The new rule only outlines the requirements; however, as stated in n.1, supra, the“2014: Guide to Creating Electronic Appellate Briefs” by Blake A. Hawthorne (located on the Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals’s websites) explains the technology involved in complying with the requirements.

assigned; the proper Court of Appeals case number on a motion for an extension to file a PDR; or the correct style of the case; and if it is not in a text-searchable PDF document.

Paper Copies Need to Be Bound:

short lists which may be single spaced). The font must still be in 14-point (12-point font allowable for footnotes). TRAP 9.4 (a ), (b), (c), (d) and (e).

Instruction for E-filing in the Court of Criminal Appeals

On the Court’s website, there is a link to a document entitled “Information on E-Filing in the Court of Criminal Appeals” which is a list of “the most common reasons a document is rejected.” The entirety of this document is a must-see for criminal appellate practitioners. PDRs will be rejected if they do not have: the proper Court of Criminal Appeals case number and case style; the party or attorney’s email address on the cover; a certificate of compliance with the document’s word count requirement; an appendix with the court of appeals’s opinion; appendices that are combined as one document with the PDR itself; and if it is not a text-searchable PDF document. A brief will be rejected if it does not have: the Court of Criminal Appeals’s case number; the email address of the attorney or party; a certificate of compliance with the word count; the appendix and brief combined into one document; and if it is not a text-searchable PDF document. Motions will be rejected if they do not have: the Court of Criminal Appeals’s case number; provided one has been

A paper brief or petition must be bound either by stapling in the upper left corner or bound in durable, non-plastic front and back covers. Covers cannot be red, black or dark blue. TRAP 9.4 (f).

Electronic Copies Need Front Covers Also:

The cover must bear case specific information as provided for in TRAP 9.4 (g). Additionally, if oral argument is desired, “the request must appear on the front cover of that party’s first brief.” TRAP 9.4 (g).

Requirements of an Electronically Filed Document:

TRAP 9.4 (j) was added to provide the basic requirements of an “electronically filed document:” 1. It must be a “text-searchable” PDF document.

2. If possible, be converted to PDF and not scanned into PDF. 3. Not be locked.

4. The document and appendix should be combined into one computer file unless it would render it in excess of size limits.

5. It must otherwise comply with promulgated Technology Standards.

Document Conformance: Second Chances Are Granted, But Two Strikes and You’re (Potentially) Out:

TRAP 9.4 (k) provides if your document does not comply with the requirements, the court “may” strike and return all the nonconforming paper copies to the filing party. The Court will notify the party of the error and date by which it must be correct. The corrected document “will be deemed filed on the same day as the document that was struck.” If another non-conforming document is filed, the court may strike it with prejudice to filing “further documents of the same kind.” TRAP 9.4 (k).

Electronic Appendices Must Be Bookmarked:

A paper appendix must be bound and can be bound with the document to which it is related, or bound separately. An electronically filed appendix with more than one item must be bookmarked to assist in locating the various contents within the appendix.

TRAP 9.4 (h).

The Rule Regarding Length of Documents Was Amended Recently:

TRAP 9.4 (I) sets forth the permissible length for briefs. Since March 2013 (prior to the January 1, 2014, new TRAP amendments), computer generated briefs are no longer capped at a flat 50-page limit. Rather, TRAP 9.4 prescribes word-count lengths for briefs according to the type of brief, and the court in which it is to be filed. See TRAP 9.4 (i) (2). For example a brief filed in an appellate court (except in a death penalty direct appeal) cannot exceed 15,000 words if computer generated (and 50 pages, if not). See TRAP 9.4 (i)(2)(B). Additionally, the relatively new Rule 9.4 requires the filing of a “Certificate of Compliance” with the word count requirement. In certifying the word count,

SAN ANTONIO DEFENDER SPRING 2014

counsel can rely on the computer word processing program used in preparation of the document. See TRAP 9.4(i)(3).

Service:

TRAP 9.5 (b), prescribing the “manner of service” was amended to include electronic service. In order to serve a party electronically, the party must “consent to electronic service” with their electronic service provider.

However, chances of a non-consenting party are slim because any attorney required to electronically file under TRAP, must consent to electronic service. The amendment further instructs that “[e]lectronic service must be performed through TexFile,2 using a certified electronic service provider.” TRAP 9.5 (b). Multiple electronic service providers exist, and some are free. See http://www.efiletexas.gov/service-providers.htm for a list of eight certified e-filing service providers.

Proof of service will be sent to the serving party when the document has been transmitted to the serving party’s e-filing service provider. TRAP 9.5 ( c)(4).

Filing of Criminal Documents are Now “Privacy Protected:”

New Rule TRAP 9.10 (a) defines “sensitive data” that needs to be sealed or redacted when filing. The definition includes, but is not limited to, pornographic material, autopsy or crime scene photos of the victim, medical reports or any report containing “highly intimate facts” which would be “highly objectionable to a reasonable person,” visual depictions of children or victims which would “compromise their personal privacy or safety,” juror information, PSIs, identifying financial or information, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, etc... See TRAP 9.10 (a). The trial court will make the decision whether such information should be sealed or redacted for the record. When filing data that is to be sealed, it should be placed in a manilla envelope marked “sealed” with a general description of the material, the date it was filed and the date they were sealed or redacted. TRAP 9.10 (b). If material is to be redacted, the attorney should put an “X” in the place of the redacted information. If the clerk or appellate court discovers any unredacted “sensitive data” the clerk will not electronically scan the material prior to

2. Effective 2/28/14, TexFile changed to eFileTexas.gov.

notifying the parties or before the trial court can rule on the material’s inclusion in the record. TRAP 9.10 ( c). Sealed data can be accessed by the parties in the case under the supervision of the clerk of the court. Other persons may access the data by court order only, upon filing a motion.

Changes to the Rule Regarding Filing of PostConviction Writs:

For several years now the Court of Criminal Appeals has been dismissing writs in increasing numbers for non-compliance with TRAP 73. Practitioners have complained about the instructions on the writ form as being unclear as to some of the Court’s preferences. See “The Dismissal of Writs by the Court of Criminal Appeals,” by Jani Maselli, Voice for The Defense, February, 2011 Issue. Changes to TRAP 73 clarify some of the Court’s preferences, including the new provision that each ground for review on the writ form “not exceed the two pages provided for each ground in the form;” and a computer generated supporting memorandum not to exceed 15,000 words. TRAP 73.1 (d). Typeface must be 14-font, and the petitioner must certify the word count in writing. TRAP. 73.1 (e) and (f).

Careful attention to both TRAP 73 and the instructions on the writ form itself should be given as TRAP 73.2 still gives the Court of Criminal Appeals discretion to dismiss the writ for non-compliance.

New Time Limitations for Resolution of Writ Issues:

To facilitate faster resolution of writs, TRAP 73.3 (a) and (b) added new duties of the District Clerk. If the convicting court enters an order designating issues (ODI), the District Clerk must transfer a copy of the ODI to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Sending a copy of the ODI to the Court of Criminal Appeals serves to communicate the status of the writ application in the lower court so the Court of Criminal Appeals can monitor the lower court’s compliance with the time limits for resolving factual issues below. The District Clerk must serve any court findings and conclusions on all parties. The parties’ timely receipt of the findings takes on

16

new importance because under the recent amendments, a party must now file any objections to the court ‘s findings and conclusions in the trial court within 10 days. The trial court, however, is free to transfer the writ record to the Court of Criminal Appeals prior to the expiration of those 10 days. See TRAP 73.3 (b)(2).

Unless the convicting court has obtained an extension of time from the Court of Criminal Appeals, it must have resolved any issues that the court timely designated for resolution “within 180 days from the date of receipt of the application by the State.” TRAP 73.4. Absent an extension of time, the District Clerk must forward the writ record to the Court of Criminal Appeals on the 181st date after receipt of the application by the State. TRAP 73.3 (b)(5).

3. Conclusion

E-filing in Texas is likely to increase and complicate the appellate practitioner’s workload, before it, hopefully, reduces it.

The brunt of work will be in mastering the technology involved in creating documents for e-filing. Even so, several rule changes, particularly the significant new time limitations for resolution of post-conviction writs, will eliminate the need for writ counsel to file and litigate petitions for mandamus because a trial court ignores their client’s writ.

It also means writ counsel will have to get ready for writ hearings quickly and respond to court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law within a mere 10 days. Many questions remain, and only time will dictate the lower courts’ application of the new time limits of amended TRAP 73, to older, pre-January 1, 2014, writs pending throughout the State of Texas. However, the new rules rev-up the dynamic of writ practice, and practitioners will need to manage their caseload accordingly. Now that the lower courts will be held accountable for resolution of writs, writ counsel must saddle up for a speedy ride.

Victor Valdes Wins for Mr. Aviles, and for Us, in the United States

George Scharmen

I met Victor Valdes in the courthouse. He would always seem interested in what I was doing. My impression was that he was a very pleasant lawyer who was very interested in the law. We often had discussions about legal issues that he discovered during the course of his work, and he would ask my opinion. Sometime in early 2012, he asked me about my opinion concerning the mandatory blood draws in Bexar County under the Texas Transportation Code – whether the process violated the Fourth Amendment because the blood was drawn without a warrant. We agreed that it appeared to be a violation. He said he had a case concerning that issue. We talked about his filing a motion to suppress. When I found out about Aviles v. State, I kept up with our discussion to see where it went. Over the following months he talked to me about his progress.

It appears that his analysis of the law was correct.

HISTORY After the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, I wanted to interview Victor about the case for the magazine. However, our discussion began as he recounted to me how he began his career as an advocate as a young Army officer in Vietnam during the war. He was assigned as an “advisor,” and he was “very proud of the assignment.” Victor was assigned to the Military Provincial Health Assistance Program. His team took over a civilian hospital under the authority of the Agency for International Development. During the Tet Offensive in 1968, he saw many civilian casualties. For his service as the administrator of the hospital he received the United States Bronze Star and the Vietnamese Medal of Honor, 2nd Class.

Later he was the Company Commander of the Medical Holding Company of the Boston

Naval Hospital. This hospital received all of the Army casualties from the Vietnam war.

His group saw all of the Army casualties which amounted to more patients than the Navy, Marines and Air Force had combined.

He saw so many serious injuries, such as spinal cord injuries causing paralysis, that it became difficult for him to forget the great sacrifices that these soldiers made. Victor began assisting the veterans in their applications for veteran’s benefits based upon their injuries. It was a difficult battle at times to obtain the benefits, and Victor went to law school for training. Throughout our conversation he referred to these individuals as “my soldiers.”

After Massachusetts, Victor and his family moved to Fort Ord, California, where he worked as a hospital administrator. He and is family went to San Juan, Puerto Rico, where he was the Officer in Charge of a health clinic at Ft. Buchanan. His next assignment was to Ft. Knox in Kentucky where he studied for his doctoral degree at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. The Valdes family was then sent to Korea where they spend two years in Seoul. Victor supervised patient administration. In Korea he continued “fighting for my guys” so that they could receive the veteran’s benefits for the disabilities which they received fighting for our country. To this day Victor still represents veterans in claims before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Washington, D.C. Eventually, Victor retired and came to San Antonio. He took the Texas Bar in 1989.

Where he now practices only criminal law, juvenile law and veteran’s appeals. Victor’s first love is criminal law: "I was born to represent the little guy who doesn’t have any money — helping them because there is nobody else helping them."

Supreme Court.

He told me that his first felony trial was with Pat Priest, and he asked for Mark Stevens as second chair. “We won the case. He is my hero,” Victor says with a smile. Mark helped him to become licensed in the United States Supreme Court.

AVILES v. STATE

Fourth Court of Appeals. At oral argument before a panel of justices, one of them asked Victor what now seems to be a very naive question based upon decades of search and seizure law: "Are you saying that a policeman cannot order a blood test if there is no warrant?"

Victor was appointed to represent Antonio Aviles by Judge Sid Harle in the 226th District Court. "It was the case I had been waiting for because of the Transguide which said, 'You don’t have the right to refuse.'”

From the beginning Victor’s position was that there were no exigent circumstances which might authorize a warrantless search.

Aviles refused both breath and blood tests, but the officer felt that he had authority to order a blood test under chapter 724 of the Transportation Code. The officer believed that no warrant was required even though there was a judge at the jail who could have issued the warrant.

At the time of Aviles’ case Missouri v. McNeely had not been decided, and almost everyone was of the opinion that Texas’ statutory scheme was settled law. However, Victor knew that one’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment applied to DWI cases at every level, misdemeanor and felony, even though the punishment differs.

He filed a motion to suppress the blood test based upon Fourth Amendment search and seizure law. Judge Harle in the 226th District Court granted him a hearing on the motion, but he overruled the motion based upon the Transportation Code.

Aviles stipulated to the evidence and entered a plea. Judge Harle sentenced him to two years, but he gave permission to appeal the ruling. Victor appealed the ruling to the

one’s Fourth Amendment rights. Aviles v.

State, 385 S.W.3d 110, 116 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2012), citing Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613, 616 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) [t]he implied consent law [codified in TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. §724.011] expands on the State's search capabilities by providing a framework for drawing DWI suspects' blood in the absence of a search warrant. It gives officers an additional weapon in their investigative arsenal, enabling them to draw blood in certain limited circumstances, even without a search warrant.

It was a framework that did not contain the fundamental knowledge of constitutional law known to Victor Valdes. These are the principles that he and his guys had sacrificed so much for in the battlefields of Vietnam.

These are the same principles that he continues to fight for in other court-appointed cases every day.

Victor Valdes

Victor’s response was: "Your honor, that is correct. The Legislature can establish laws and polices as long as they do not contradict the constitution."

The Court of Appeals was not convinced that a policeman in a DWI case needed a warrant to search an accused DWI driver even when there was a magistrate available and there was no exception to the warrant requirement. Apparently, everyone, except Victor, agreed that the Legislature could take away

Victor did not give up. He filed a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. It was summarily denied with a post card. Then, within the time to file a motion for rehearing, the Supreme Court decided Missouri v. McNeely ruling precisely as he had argued so honestly before the Fourth Court of Appeals. He filed a motion for rehearing in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Again, he was rebuffed, but this time with two dissenting judges.

Victor filed a petition in the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to the Fourth Court of Appeals, the highest Texas court which had ruled on the merits of his claim. Then the news came back. The Supreme Court wanted the Bexar County District Attorney to respond to his petition.

Coninued on page 12.

Out & About Photos by Patricia Jay

a

C

B A. Clockwise (from left front) Carly Kitchens, Mario Gamez, Judge Carlo Key, Christopher Simpkins, Juan Carlos Hernandez, Trisha Morales Paida B. Bobby Barrera & others at SABA Chili Cookoff C. Judge Tessa Herr D. Judge Walden Shelton, Judge Wayne Christian E. Roy Barrera Jr., Roy Barrera, Sr., and Jimmy Allison F. Ben Rosenbach, unidentified

E

D

F

SAN ANTONIO DEFENDER SPRING 2014

G

20

H A

I

K

M G. Jorge A., Angela Moore, Patricia Jay, Bob Featherston H. Jeff Weatherford I. Roy Barrera, Sr., and Jimmy Allison J. Jorge Aristotelides, Sean Simpson, Raymond Fuchs K. Mariachis (at SACDLA Fiesta Party) L. Jorge Aristotelidis M. Andrew Froelich

J

L

Out & About

AF

D

B

C

D A. Todd Coronado, Daphne Prevti B. R.C. Pate, Richard Dulany C. Megan Roper, Adrian Flores D. Steve Barrera, Jason Cruz E. Anton Hajek F. Bob, Jorge, Angela

E

F

SAN ANTONIO DEFENDER SPRING 2014

22

G

H

I

J G. Justine Daly, Judge Ron Rangel, Susan Skinner H. Incoming SACDLA President, Bob Featherston, and Secretary Patrica Jay I. Vice President, Warren Wolf, is sworn in J. New SACDLA Treasurer, Mike McCrum K. Outgoing President, Jorge A., swears in new President, Robert Featherston

K

The San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association P.O. Box 831206 San Antonio, Texas 78283-1206 Telephone: (210) 501-2916 Facsimile: (210) 885-7714

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION *NAME:

G Mr. G Ms.

G Mrs.

First Name

G Dr.

G Professor

G Other

Last Name

MAILING ADDRESS:

MI

Street Address/Suite Nbr./PO Box

City

State

TELEPHONE:

ZIP

County

FAX:

*EMAIL ADDRESS: *TEXAS BAR CARD NO.:

DATE OF BIRTH:

Certified Criminal Law Specialist?

Member of TCDLA?

G YES

G YES

G NO

G NO

Do you want a Membership Certificate?

NACDL? G YES

G YES

G NO

G NO

CATEGORY OF MEMBERSHIP: G Contributing ($150 per year)

G St Mary’s Law Student/First Year Lawyer ($30)

G Regular ($75 per year)

G St. Mary’s Crim. Law Assn ($0, Volunteer 5 Hours)

(Attorneys): I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of Texas. I am actively engaged in the defense of criminal cases in the State, County or Municipal Courts in Bexar County or the surrounding contiguous Counties, or in the Federal Courts of the Western District of Texas. I do not hold a full time or elected Judicial or Prosecutorial Position. *SIGNATURE:

Date:

PLEASE MAIL APPLICATION TO: SACDLA, P.O. Box 831206, San Antonio, Texas 78283-1206 * Required Information (Bar Card No. not required for student membership application)

Hassle Free Printing We Take Printing Seriously…Not Ourselves.

5,000 postcards $149 • 10,000 flyers $349 • 1,000 magazines $995 (16 pages, 60# paper)

Call 210-804-0390 for Special Online Pricing!

Visit us at www.shweiki.com

CONTACT TRACY TO SCHEDULE YOUR PLANT TOUR 210-804-0390 • Email samplEs@shwEiki for a frEE quotE or call 512-480-0860

Experienced Process Server Specializing in the service of

ALR and Criminal Subpoenas Ger mai nLet our neau 210.

685.

6250

12 Years experience

INSTANT

ESSED and PRINTED in as little as 5 MINUTES!!!)

www.conceptSR22.com from:

ACCURATE CONCEPT INSURANCE A revolutionary new way to provide the Texas SR-22 that will save you and your staff valuable time while also saving your clients money. No more waiting for your client to get that SR-22 to your staff, it’s always readily available at your fingertips.  Allows the Texas SR-22 to be purchased and INSTANTLY! printed from ANY computer— ANY time.  Safely protects your Client’s relationship with their current insurance provider by utilizing an Operator’s Policy to provide the SR-22.  Automatically e-mails a PDF File of the SR-22 to the Client, to the Texas Department of Public Safety AND to your office . . . WITHIN 10 MINUTES!!!  Allows you and your staff to INSTANTLY! access and print the Texas SR-22 at any time from any computer . . . using only the basic information you already have in your Client’s file.  Unmatched rates and plans will save your Clients money over traditional methods.

Please go online or call Jay Freeman today for more information: www.conceptSR22.com ACCURATE CONCEPT INSURANCE Dallas: 972-386-4386 Toll Free: 800-967-4386

 INSTANT ON-LINE SR-22  (PROCESSED and PRINTED in as little as 5 MINUTES!!!)

www.conceptSR22.com from: ACCURATE CONCEPT INSURANCE

CALL

SUBMISSIONS

A revolutionary new way to provide the Texas SR-22 that will save you and your staff valuable for time while also saving your clients money. No more waiting for your client to get that SR-22 to your staff, it’s always readily available at your fingertips.  AN ABSOLUTELY FREE SERVICE FOR YOUR FIRM  INSTANTLY! allows your Client to purchase and print the Texas SR-22 from ANY computer — ANY time.

The San Antonio Defender is always looking for content that  SAFELY! uses an Operator’s Policy to protect your Client’s relationship with their current insurance provider. serves to inspire, educate, and excite our membership.  WITHIN 10 MINUTES! emails the original SR-22 to your Client, the Texas DPS AND your office.

If you would like to contribute, please contact member of SR-22 from  IMMEDIATELY! allows you and your staff to access andaprint the Texas our website.

The Defender  UNMATCHED! ratesstaff. and plans will save your Clients money over traditional methods.

Please go online or call Jay Freeman today for more information:

www.conceptSR22.com ACCURATE CONCEPT INSURANCE Dallas: 972-386-4386  Toll Free: 800-967-4386

SACDLA

MEMORIALIZES

Ray Taylor Don Mach

Please submit tributes toTrisha Morales Padia (Padia.Trisha@gmail.com) for publication in upcoming issues of our magazine.

The San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyers Association