saltydog452 wrote:From what I think I understand, deferred punishment is an agreement agreed on by the DA, and the defense. And, maybe between the Judge's ears. It is an admission of guilt and that admission can't get undone.
When the probationary period is successfully completed, the judge does set aside the guilty (or no contest plea), dismisses the indictment, information or charge and dismisses the case.
saltydog452 wrote:Dang talltex, I just don't know.
Since you were either convicted of, or confessed to, a crime, the history is there. And can't (legally) be expunged.
That'd be where the pardon comes in.
I just don't see that happening for the unwashed masses. Not everybody has access to the Govs office. I see it as just another way that justice is pimped out.
Pandering is illegal. Unless maybe you just happen to be a legislator.
salty
I understand how the current system works in Austin...I've had 3 family members in the legislature over the years and your comment about pandering and influence peddling is well founded. But your belief that once a conviction is in place you are stuck with it unless you get a pardon from the govenor's office is incorrect. That is precisely what expungement accomplishes...it wipes the slate clean legally so that there is no record of arrest or conviction...you get a "do over". However, there are exceptions which we've been discussing (sexual offenses and alcohol offenses for example), where even though you may not have received a final conviction, due to completion of a deferred adjudication, the arrest still shows up on your record...forever. If the current law was ammended, so that successful completion of the deferred adjudication resulted in the record being automatically expunged, there would be no need for a pardon (or a generous campaign contribution) or to go through the legal process of hiring an attorney to file for an expungement.
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
To qualify for an legal (not political) expunction, the jury/judge must render a not guilty declaration. Notice, that is not the same as a Guilty Plea with deferred adjucation.
Then HisHonor, the Judge can be approached by an attorney, perhaps cut from the same bolt of cloth, to issue an Expunction Order. If granted, that Order goes to the Feebs, various City, State, and County files and retrival warerhouse storage facilities. It does notmake the arrest history go up in smoke. It does go away in a first blush inquiry though.
I understand gut reactions to certain crimes. I don't understand why someone would object to deferred adjudication being eligible for a pardon if a conviction for the same crime is eligible for a pardon.
I believe the basic political division in this country is not between liberals and conservatives but between those who believe that they should have a say in the personal lives of strangers and those who do not.
I was told the same lie. When i was young my friends like to steal cars for kicks but I never participated. I did hang out there on weekends and BBQ and stuff. Got wrapped up in their mess when DPS raided. The DA was told later I had no video or audio evidence against me I was just in the wrong place/wrong time by the cops. DA said that he had spent too much on the case and I had to have something done to me (seriously said this). Deferred Adj was offered and I was told it goes away completely. Has never affected my job or anything but I did have to wait the ten years for my "conviction" for a CHL. I do have Class III stuff now so isnt really affecting my gun interests and did get a airport badge with escort privileges after explaining it to the boss there. Def Adj is a lie and does need to be altered the way Chas is saying. FYI, you can expunge and seal all you want but the govt will see everything when they want to. It never goes away. I was up for a White House job in the military and they pulled 15 yr old traffic citations from when I was in High School. That stuff is always there.
To qualify for an legal (not political) expunction, the jury/judge must render a not guilty declaration. Notice, that is not the same as a Guilty Plea with deferred adjucation.
salty
Not disagreeing with what you say...under the CURRENT law, you are correct. You are talking about the way it IS...I'm talking about what COULD be. What Charles originally said was that he THOUGHT the state SHOULD grant automatic expunction upon completion of deferred adjudication, and I agreed and said I THOUGHT the automatic expunction SHOULD apply to all offenses, if deferred adjudication was deemed appropriate to begin with. Unless the current statutes were amended, that can't happen, but it is what I think would be fair and just in an ideal system. As it stands, people are led to believe that because Def. Adj. results in a non conviction, that their record is clean, and won't affect them later on, but that is not necessarily the case.
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
This is one constitutional amendment. You can vote for it or against it.
Other changes are going to require action by the legislature. Maybe they need to get the message that being "tough on crime" beyond a certain point is irrational, unjust, and also doesn't get them elected. Texas has made some progress with allowing convicts to use new DNA testing techniques that were not available at the time of their trial to exonerate themselves—though the threshold is still set high.
I don't know what can ever be done about incorrect eyewitness testimony or monstrosities like "recovered memory" that have been used to convict people of crimes in the absence of any other evidence.
They are going overboard by punishing people for life for petty offenses
that happened years ago. There needs to be some limits and offenses
should go away if they are not serious.
N.R.A. benefactor Member Please Support the N.R.A.
That sounds like something that might be heard on 'The View'. Folks who live in gated compounds and have access of all that implies, just flat don't have a clue. History is just that and should not be subject to revision by the current powers that be.
The owners of chop shops don't steal the cars any more than pawn shop owners commit burglaries or street pimps spent a lot of time on their back with legs up.
A fourteen year old is just as capable of 'popin a cap' as a homeowner who just might be tired of being a victim.
A thief, whether its gazillions from a Pension Fund, or a lawnmower from a garage ought to be held accountable for their actions. Perhaps that line of thought is why there are now about 3 dozen states who have 'shall issue' laws.
Sorry Charles, I didn't intend to ignore your comment.
If the conclusion of a trial results in anything but a declaration of Not Guilty, that result is history. Maybe it can be set aside, receive deferred adjucation, community service, a campaign contribution, or two weeks in Prison Resort.
It is still history and should be subject to transparency and public view.
The power of the president of the United States to issue pardons was in the constitution from day 1. Many colonial governors had pardon power before the colonies were states. All state governors have it now.
Texas governors had pretty much the same broad power until a few governors back when it was used or abused for political or ideological reasons. That's why the power of the Texas governor became so much more limited.
This amendment is strictly about a very specific set of circumstances where the governor may issue a pardon.
If you don't like the concept of pardons, you basically don't like an element of common law that has been in place for centuries.
I might also remind people that before the 1960s, a convicted felon who completed has sentence typically had full restoration of his rights. He could vote, run for office, join the military, own firearms of course, or hold any job if he could convince the employer to hire him.
The rights of a convicted felon or even some people convicted of misdemeanors are much more limited now, and the record of a conviction is much easier to obtain. This makes the justice of a pardon much more important for someone who deserves a pardon.
- Jim
Fear, anger, hatred, and greed. The devil's all-you-can-eat buffet.
seamusTX wrote:The power of the president of the United States to issue pardons was in the constitution from day 1. Many colonial governors had pardon power before the colonies were states. All state governors have it now.
Texas governors had pretty much the same broad power until a few governors back when it was used or abused for political or ideological reasons. That's why the power of the Texas governor became so much more limited.
This amendment is strictly about a very specific set of circumstances where the governor may issue a pardon.
If you don't like the concept of pardons, you basically don't like an element of common law that has been in place for centuries.
I might also remind people that before the 1960s, a convicted felon who completed has sentence typically had full restoration of his rights. He could vote, run for office, join the military, own firearms of course, or hold any job if he could convince the employer to hire him.
The rights of a convicted felon or even some people convicted of misdemeanors are much more limited now, and the record of a conviction is much easier to obtain. This makes the justice of a pardon much more important for someone who deserves a pardon.
- Jim
Thanks for posting this, JIM. Since the hired clown botched the liquor referendum here in Pleasantville, I've not been real interested in this election. Tomorrow is the last day of early voting and we're out of town next week. I'm voting for #1, how should I vote for the others?
But your belief that once a conviction is in place you are stuck with it unless you get a pardon from the govenor's office is incorrect. That is precisely what expungement accomplishes...it wipes the slate clean legally so that there is no record of arrest or conviction...you get a "do over". However, there are exceptions which we've been discussing (sexual offenses and alcohol offenses for example), where even though you may not have received a final conviction, due to completion of a deferred adjudication, the arrest still shows up on your record...forever. If the current law was ammended, so that successful completion of the deferred adjudication resulted in the record being automatically expunged, there would be no need for a pardon (or a generous campaign contribution) or to go through the legal process of hiring an attorney to file for an expungement.
Please Support the N.R.A. 
