XXVI. Conditions of Probation—Limitations
A. STAY OUT OF BARS – CHANGE JOB = OK
Lacy v. State, 875 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994, no pet.).
Requiring defendant to stay out of bars and taverns or similar places, preventing defendant’s continuing current employment, held to have a reasonable relation to crime and defendant’s criminality.
B. DENIAL OF PROBATION DUE TO LANGUAGE BARRIER-PROPER
Flores v. State, 904 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995).
Defendant was convicted of DWI and sentenced by the judge to jail in large part because he spoke only Spanish, and there were no appropriate rehabilitation programs for Spanish speakers. Decision held not to violate defendant’s rights as was rationally related to legitimate government interest.
C. ORDER OF RESTITUTION PROPER IF DAMAGE CAUSED BY OFFENSE COMMISSION
Hanna v. State, 426 S.W.3d 87 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014).
This case involved an appeal from an Appellate Court decision that denied restitution in a DWI case where property damage occurred. The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the denial of restitution in this case because it agreed that there was sufficient evidence that the Defendant’s intoxicated driving caused the accident that caused the damage. An important part of the decision benefits victims of DWI related damage by holding that for the purposes of the restitution statute; a “victim” is any person who suffered loss as a direct result of the criminal offense. In so holding, they rejected the argument that a victim had to be named in the charging instrument.
See also: Sanders v. State, No. 05-12-01186-CR, 2014 WL 1627320 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2014, pet. ref’d).
D. URINE TEST RESULT FROM UNACCREDITED LAB SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED
Hargett v. State, No. 06-15-00022-CR, 2015 WL 5098964 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2015)
Defendant was on probation for DWI and was revoked based on proof that she had ingested Methamphetamine and Alcohol. That proof came from a urine test administered per probation conditions. Court held that objection to urine test result should have been sustained as it’s admission violated Article 38.35 CCP since lab that did testing was not “accredited”. Judgement of revocation reversed.