Thursday, June 21, 2007

Summary of indigent defense legislation available

The lovely and talented Andrea Marsh from Texas Fair Defense Project forwards this summary of key legislation related to indigent defense (pdf) from the 80th Texas Legsislature. Anyone interested should take a look.
Posted by Gritsforbreakfast at 3:11 PM
Labels: ,

5 comments:

Unknown said...

The Texas Fair Defense Act, I like it but does it have any teeth?

Also, is it not unequal that a Death Penalty Defendant is provided counsel from beginning to end while the other defendants are provided counsel in the beginning of the appeals process and many of them file anders briefs.

6/21/2007 08:25:00 PM
Unknown said...

I. DID THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS ERR: Dear Texas Fair Defense Act,

Here is a Perfect Chance to Show Your Teeth

24. Appellant’s right to the Compulsory Process was and continues to be thwarted. Material Witness Mary Cano never appeared to any of the proceedings in which Defendant’s / Appellant’s Counsel subpoenaed her. A subpoena was issued for Mary Cano directing her to appear before the same court proceeding (MFNT) in which the State claims it can get her there if she is needed. The State admits knowledge of Mary Cano’s whereabouts and goes on to boast of her being easy to find; yet whether willfully or inadvertently LeeAnn Haley’s 6th Amendment right to Compulsory Process was violated.

1. ”When confronted with this situation, we treat the State's failure to file a brief as a confession of error. Siverand v. State, 89 S.W.3d 216, 220 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.)."
2 Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 99–8119. Saldano v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari
granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of the confession of error

3 Pursuant to Siverand, we will make an independent examination of the merits of appellant's points of error and any opposing arguments are limited to those advanced by the State in the trial court. Id.
4 The rules of appellate procedure require the parties to advance their own arguments. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h) and 38.2(a)(1).
5 Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) Finally, decisional authority prevents us from advancing arguments on behalf of either party.

There is more>>>>>>>>>> Show Your Teeth!

6/22/2007 06:53:00 AM
Anonymous said...

Isn't it time for a Public Defender in Texas?

6/22/2007 07:18:00 PM
Anonymous said...

Re: Texas Fair Defense
some Mondays are worse than others..
I had 2 court dates/1day: 1st was to request an atty 2nd was under subpoena at co-defendants trial: DA found me one (atty)in the hall & 5 min later, he's mine. I can go home, as he said I plead the 5th due to future crim. case. My case will come up in a few months, he'll be in touch.Tue.,7:00pm, phone call- my trial is at 9:00am Wed. morning -there's a plea I should consider..Wed a.m.-accept plea or risk prison, who gets my kids from school??? Did we 'prepare' in 15 minutes? There's no choice -4yrs probation, go home today + court costs, 250.00 for my atty, etc. etc.3wks later, a letter, +750.00 added to atty fees (wow).I thought the county helped due to the 'indigent, but working part."You pay it because your lucky enough not to be in prison" - I guess she was right- Tx had a Fair Defense to my question. That fella strolled down the right hall that morning...2 mos ago...did anyone ever tell him what my case was about?

6/24/2007 03:14:00 AM
Anonymous said...

not when he can make 1k in the all of 30 minutes he worked!

6/26/2007 10:48:00 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)