By Tanya Taylor & Baylee Walters
Assistant Criminal District Attorneys in Gregg County
On August 4, 2025, officers with the Longview Police Department responded to the Majestic Inn after receiving a call that a man was slumped over in the driver’s seat of a vehicle while repeatedly revving the engine. The caller, a motel clerk, remained on the phone with dispatch and reported the actions of the driver in real time. She said he was driving around the parking lot, he was having trouble parking, and he stumbled from the vehicle into his room.
About four minutes after the 911 call ended, officers arrived and met with the motel clerk, who requested that the driver be removed from the premises. The clerk informed officers that the same man had been involved in a hit-and-run at the motel the previous day. She then asked officers if they could issue the man a criminal trespass warning, preventing him from coming back to the motel. She provided his room number, and officers proceeded to the room.
Finding the door partially ajar, officers knocked and announced their presence. After receiving permission to enter, they found the occupant, later identified as Jeffry Webb, lying unclothed in bed. Webb told officers that he had been asleep for the past nine hours. Officers advised him that he was being vacated from the premises due to breaking motel policies, and they instructed him to gather his belongings. While helping him, officers did not find any alcohol in his room; however, they did observe indicators that Webb was likely intoxicated, including slurred speech, red and glassy eyes, and slow motor function.
After helping Webb load his belongings into his vehicle, officers informed him that he would not be permitted to drive and encouraged him to call someone to come get him. Webb contacted his mother, who declined to pick him up. Based on the totality of the circumstances, officers shifted their investigation to a possible driving while intoxicated (DWI) offense.
Police reviewed the motel’s surveillance footage, which corroborated the clerk’s account: It showed Webb driving his vehicle through the parking lot, parking crooked, exiting, and stumbling into his motel room. Webb was subsequently asked to perform the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), but he refused.
Based on the clerk’s statements, surveillance video, admission to drinking alcohol, another patron’s statements regarding Webb, and Webb’s physical signs of intoxication, officers placed him under arrest for DWI. A search warrant was obtained for a blood specimen, which was collected approximately three hours after his arrest. Webb’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.272 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, more than three times the legal limit of 0.08.
Unlike a typical DWI prosecution, law enforcement did not personally observe Webb operating a motor vehicle, nor did officers initiate a traffic stop. Instead, the investigation originated from a welfare check. The evidence established Webb’s operation of the vehicle through the motel clerk’s eyewitness account, surveillance video showing Webb driving mere minutes prior to police arriving, and his observable signs of intoxication immediately thereafter. Alongside the blood test result, the evidence provided a compelling conclusion that Webb was intoxicated while operating his motor vehicle.
Not his first offense
Jeffry Webb has extensive criminal history involving repeated DWI offenses spanning nearly three decades all from Gregg County. His first DWI occurred on December 11, 1996, he pleaded guilty, and he received two years of probation. Another DWI was taken into consideration with that plea. While he was in his last few months of probation, Webb picked up another DWI and pleaded guilty in June 1999, and he again received two years of probation. After completing his second probation in June 2001, Webb had no arrests for approximately eight years.
However, on August 29, 2009, he was arrested for his first DWI–Third or More and pled guilty in February 2010. Just six months into his probation, Webb was arrested again for DWI. At this point, Webb pled guilty to his fourth DWI and probation on his third was modified. Webb was sent to the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFPF) for treatment and successfully completed the program. He was released from the SAFPF and the aftercare program around the end of June 2011.
For the next four years Webb appeared to comply with his probation. Then, while on probation for his two felony DWIs, he was arrested for his fifth DWI in May 2015. Because he had never been to prison before, the State could not enhance Webb’s sentence. At this point, he pled guilty to his newest DWI, pled true to all the allegations in the revocations on his other two felony DWIs, and was sentenced to five years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) with all sentences running concurrently.
A year after Webb completed his TDCJ sentence, he committed another felony DWI offense in November 2021. At this point, he had been arrested for seven DWIs and convicted of six of them. He pleaded guilty in May 2023 and was sentenced to another five years in prison. Webb was later released and while on parole, he was arrested yet again for felony DWI—the one we took to trial. Webb’s six prior DWI convictions demonstrated a longstanding pattern of intoxicated driving and repeated criminal conduct despite multiple opportunities for rehabilitation.
An ongoing concern
It is fair to say that DWI cases continue to be a significant public safety concern affecting communities across Texas, including Gregg County. Over the past several months, DWI-related offenses have had a substantial impact here, with many incidents involving crashes, serious injuries, and even fatalities. These cases, particularly the fatal collisions, demonstrate the severe and often irreversible consequences of operating a motor vehicle while impaired on drugs and alcohol.
Prosecuting DWI offenses in our county serves several important purposes: holding offenders accountable for placing our community at risk, enforcing laws to protect public safety, and deterring others from impaired driving. By imposing the appropriate legal consequences, we reinforce that individuals who choose to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated will be held responsible for the harm their actions may cause the community.
While DWI prosecutions can be challenging due to evidentiary, scientific, and procedural issues, taking these cases to trial (rather than routinely resolving them through plea deals) supports the broader goal of reducing impaired driving in our community. The public is regularly exposed to reports of DWI offenses and the preventable tragedies that can result. To maintain public confidence, law enforcement and prosecutors must vigorously pursue DWI cases. Ultimately, a consistent commitment to prosecuting DWI reinforces the law, promotes accountability, and helps protect the public from preventable harm.
The trial
When picking a jury for this case, we were seeking jurors who would acknowledge the public safety risks associated with intoxicated driving even in an atypical circumstance such as this one. It was important for the jury to understand that circumstantial evidence can be just as persuasive as direct evidence when corroborated.
Because DWI offenses often involve strong personal opinions and experiences, we knew it was important to explore the panelists’ backgrounds. We asked prospective jurors whether any panel member, their family, or close friends had been involved in impaired driving situations, including arrests, convictions, crashes, or injuries. These questions helped us identify whether a juror’s personal experience might affect the ability to remain fair and impartial. However, the purpose was not to exclude jurors solely based on how they were impacted by intoxicated driving, but to determine whether they could set aside those experiences, evaluate the evidence presented objectively, and render a verdict based solely on the law and facts in this case.
When talking about habitual offenders, we wanted jurors who could consider the full range of punishment authorized by law. We did not necessarily look for individuals who automatically wanted to impose the maximum but instead those who could follow the court’s instructions and render a punishment that was fair and consistent. We mentioned that the punishment range could be anywhere from two years all the way up to 99 years or life. Some on the panel thought two years was too low; on the other end, individuals thought life was too high. We posed hypothetical scenarios where jurors could consider two years and scenarios where they could even consider life.
The State used two of Webb’s prior felony DWI–Third or More convictions as his jurisdictional enhancements. There were only two prior felonies we could use for enhancement purposes. Strategically, alleging these prior convictions preserved the State’s ability to offer them at trial if the defense declined to stipulate. Had that happened, we would have been required to present evidence establishing the prior convictions as a jurisdictional element to the offense. In that case, the jury would have been able to hear about the defendant’s prior felony DWI convictions during guilt–innocence for the limited purpose of proving an essential element.
During the punishment phase of trial, we emphasized that Webb was given multiple opportunities to change his behavior and avoid further DWI offenses. The defense called his mother and brother-in-law to the stand, and they both testified about Webb’s severe alcoholism and his efforts at rehabilitation. His mother also testified about the family’s efforts to help him, including an intervention in which Webb refused to participate. During one of his stints in prison, Webb was sent to a SAFPF, and he had also gone to at least three other private rehabilitation facilities. Despite all of these opportunities to change, he continued to engage in conduct that placed the public at risk.
During closing arguments, we carefully considered the appropriate punishment recommendation. Ultimately, we emphasized Webb’s persistent pattern of driving while intoxicated and his repeated failure to take advantage of rehabilitation and counseling. Despite having previously served two other prison sentences, Webb committed the current offense four months after being released on parole.
We argued that his continued intoxicated driving demonstrated a disregard for the law and the safety of the community. Despite prior convictions, incarceration, and opportunities to address his alcohol addiction, he still chose to drink and then drive. Based on his history and the need to protect the public, and honestly, to protect Webb from himself, we asked the jury to impose a life sentence. It was the only verdict that could protect other drivers and members of the community from the continued danger Jeffry Webb posed.
After deliberating for only an hour and a half, the jury returned a verdict assessing life. The sentence reflects both the evidence presented and Gregg County’s commitment to holding intoxicated drivers accountable and protecting the community from repeat offenders.
Lessons
For prosecutors handling repeat DWI offenders, Webb’s case provides an important lesson: Do not be afraid to fully prosecute a case when the facts warrant it. Repeat DWI offenses should be viewed in the context of the defendant’s entire history, including prior convictions, failed rehabilitation efforts, and repeated opportunities to change. Prosecutors should be prepared to present these aspects to a jury when a lesser consequence has failed to deter him. In addition, prosecutors should carefully evaluate and pursue enhancements because they can give the jury a more complete picture of the defendant; they can also ensure the defendant’s longtime conduct is considered at punishment.
While every case must be evaluated on its own facts, prosecutors should not hesitate to seek the maximum punishment. When the evidence establishes that the defendant poses a substantial danger to the community, seeking a life sentence is not simply about punishment, it is about accountability, public safety, and preventing an avoidable tragedy. When a repeat offender, such as Jeffry Webb, has been given every opportunity to change but continues to put lives at risk, a life sentence is not simply a punishment—it is a consequence he himself earned.