Representative Case Results

The State charged a Class B misdemeanor DWI after a single-vehicle traffic stop near State Highway 121. The breath operator's affidavit reflected a continuous observation period, but a careful review of timestamps on the intoxilyzer slip and the operator's certification log showed a gap of approximately 15 minutes during which the operator left the room to take a phone call. We moved to suppress the breath result under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23 (Texas exclusionary rule) on the ground that the State could not establish compliance with 37 TAC § 19.4 (Texas Breath Alcohol Testing Regulation continuous-observation requirement).

Client faced an enhanced Class A DWI under Penal Code § 49.04(d) based on a breath result of 0.16. The defense subpoenaed the Intoxilyzer maintenance records, technical supervisor reports, and reference-sample analysis records for the specific instrument used. Review revealed the technical supervisor had documented an out-of-tolerance reference sample during the maintenance cycle immediately preceding the test, with a corrective entry made the following day but no documented re-verification of the instrument before the test in question.

We filed a motion to suppress under CCP Art. 38.23 and a parallel motion in limine on Daubert/Kelly reliability grounds (see Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)).

Client was charged with possession of a Penalty Group 1 controlled substance (Health and Safety Code § 481.115), a state jail felony at the under-one-gram weight level. The initial traffic stop was for an alleged improper lane change on Sam Rayburn Tollway. Body-cam footage showed the stop lasted approximately 47 minutes while the officer awaited a K-9 unit, which did not arrive until well past the time the original traffic-investigation purpose had concluded.

We filed a motion to suppress citing Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), which holds that a traffic stop becomes unlawful when extended beyond the time reasonably required to complete its initial mission. The defense charted the timeline second-by-second and identified the precise moment at which the stop had impermissibly become an investigative detention unsupported by independent reasonable suspicion.

Client was charged with Assault Causing Bodily Injury — Family Violence under Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1), a Class A misdemeanor with affirmative-finding consequences under CCP Art. 42.013. The complainant provided a statement at the scene but later contacted defense counsel through a third party to indicate the statement was inaccurate.

The defense did not rely on the complainant's recantation alone — recantations are common and prosecutors are trained to proceed without them. Instead, we conducted independent investigation: subpoenaed and reviewed 911 audio, examined photographs of the alleged scene, interviewed two third-party witnesses (a neighbor and a delivery driver), and obtained text-message records that contextualized the encounter differently than the initial police report.

Client was indicted in NDTX on wire fraud charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 arising out of a business-to-business transaction dispute. The government's initial loss-amount calculation under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.1(b)(1) placed the offense at a level resulting in a Guideline range of 51 to 63 months.

The defense challenged the loss calculation on three grounds: (1) the inclusion of consequential damages not directly attributable to the fraudulent conduct (see United States v. Mahaffey, 53 F.3d 128 (5th Cir. 1995), and progeny on loss-causation requirements); (2) the failure to credit value received by victims, contrary to § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(E); and (3) the inclusion of co-defendant conduct not reasonably foreseeable to the client under relevant-conduct rules of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.

We retained a forensic accountant who produced a competing loss calculation reducing the actual loss attributable to the client by approximately 60 percent. The Presentence Investigation Report was revised accordingly.

Juvenile respondent was referred to Collin County Juvenile Probation following an alleged Class A misdemeanor offense at a high school. The respondent had no prior juvenile referrals and was a high-school student with strong academic standing and college plans.

The defense prepared a comprehensive mitigation package including academic records, letters from teachers and coaches, a community-service plan voluntarily completed prior to the disposition hearing, and an explanation of the circumstances grounded in the respondent's contemporaneous family situation. We engaged the prosecutor early to explore deferred prosecution under Family Code § 53.03.

Client retained the firm to expunge a Class C misdemeanor offense that had resulted in deferred-disposition completion years earlier. The Class C deferred-disposition path under CCP Art. 45.051 generally permits expunction under CCP § 55.01(a)(2)(B) once specific statutory criteria are satisfied.

The defense confirmed eligibility, identified all agencies and entities that maintained any record of the offense (including the arresting agency, the court of jurisdiction, the Department of Public Safety, and several third-party background-check databases), and filed a petition for expunction under CCP Ch. 55 in the appropriate district court.

Client was on deferred-adjudication community supervision for a state-jail felony drug possession. The State filed a Motion to Adjudicate alleging multiple violations: positive drug screens, missed community-service hours, and failure to complete a court-ordered evaluation. If adjudicated, the client faced the full state-jail felony punishment range under CCP Art. 42A.751.

The defense developed three lines of argument: (1) statutory and procedural challenges to two of the alleged violations (chain-of-custody on one screen, due-process notice on another); (2) documented enrollment in a structured outpatient treatment program with sobriety milestones met; and (3) a mitigation presentation focused on the client's stable employment, family responsibilities, and demonstrated post-violation course correction.

Client was the subject of a pre-indictment investigation by a Collin County police department following an outcry interview conducted at a child-advocacy center. The defense engaged at the investigative stage, before any charges had been filed and before any custodial interrogation.

We retained a forensic interview expert to review the outcry interview recording for compliance with the Texas Family Code § 261.302 forensic-interview protocols and to identify any leading or suggestive questioning under the National Children's Advocacy Center (NCAC) standards. We assembled a documentary record of the client's whereabouts during the relevant period through phone-location records, employer attendance records, and third-party corroboration. The defense submitted a written presentation to the lead detective documenting the investigative concerns.