I agree. I personally knew someone who was told by a friend over beers that he was going to rob a non-specified convenience store, then laughed it off. As it turns out the friend was serious (something about a drunk man's words comes to mind) and he was caught. Somewhere in the investigation that conversation came to light and my acquaintance was prosecuted as an accessory because he didn't call the police and tell them that his friend intended to rob some store, somewhere at sometime. Yes, it was an election year.Charles L. Cotton wrote:The whole theory of deferred adjudication, and the lies that are told to defendants, is that successful completion of the probationary period means they don't have a conviction and they can go on with their lives. A large percentage of people accepting deferred adjudication are innocent and simply cannot afford a competent attorney, so don't think that everyone who "got deferred" are guilty and are getting off light.Jumping Frog wrote:I am really not that familiar with deferred adjudications so I can't speak to the specifics, but in general, I would prefer having the record sealed instead of expunged. Allow the seal to be opened for certain defined circumstances such as: by LEO/prosecutor if the sealed conviction would have an affect on the nature or character of new charges being considered against the person; for background check for employment as peace officer or CO; if the sealed offense would be admissible in the trial for new charges; keep the DNA in the database if it is there.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm very much in favor of the concept, but in the end I believe few people will benefit. There are tens of thousands of deferred adjudications each year throughout the State and the Board will not have time to consider them and make a recommendation to the Governor. I think the law should be changed such that all successfully completed deferred adjudications result in the defendant's record being expunged.
I also think sealing should only be available for first-time offenders. If they committed multiple crimes at the same time, or within the same short time window, they could all be lumped together as "first-time".
Some crimes are not eligible for deferred adjudication so if society wants to be able to use deferred adjudications against some defendants, then the better policy would be to add that crime to the not eligible list.
Chas.
He was offered deferred adjudication and promised it would "go away" after he completed it; he was one who could not afford a competent attorney. Well, he completed it yet somehow he could not purchase a firearm, it cropped up in denial of employment though he truthfully put down "no convictions", etc. It's been 17 years since I last saw him or his wife so I don't know what, if anything, has changed since then. I think it stands as a perfect example of what is wrong with the current state of deferred adjudication status.