Archive for the ‘DWI Defense’ Category

WAIVER OF DPS SURCHARGES FOR DWI

Tuesday, September 25th, 2012

Texas DPS Driver Responsibility Indigency Program

General Overview -The Texas legislature authorized the Indigency program to provide drivers the ability to comply with surcharges owed under the Driver Responsibility program and maintain driving privileges. The surcharges are not waived under this program, but are reduced.

The Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) objective for the Indigency program is to increase public safety on the roadways by ensuring drivers can become licensed and obtain financial liability insurance.

The DPS Indigency program will apply to individuals living at or below 125% of the federal poverty level as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services. Individuals may apply by completing, signing, and having notarized an affidavit.

If an individual qualifies for Indigency, it will reduce the surcharge amount owed to 10% of the total, not to exceed $250 (service fees will still apply). It will also remove suspension of driving privileges for those who qualify for the program while making payments (assuming no other restrictions are on file with DPS).

Any surcharge assessed on or after September 30, 2004 is eligible for reductions under the Indigency program provided your application is approved.

To apply-Each individual must submit the DPS approved application. The application must be completed in full and notarized prior to submission. The application is available for download HERE or you may call (866) 223-3583 and have an application sent to your address of record through our automated system. For instructions on how to fill out an application, click HERE.

Supporting Documents-Applicants must provide supporting documentation based on answers to the questions on the Indigency application. Falsified applications may result in criminal charges and prosecution.

Some examples of supporting documents:
•A 1040 for the prior tax year and include any 1099 forms related to the 1040
•The most recent two (2) months’ bank statements
•The most recent two (2) paycheck stubs from all employers
•Unemployment claims of payment or denial letter for the previous months
•Social Security Supplemental Income receipts for the previous months
•Any other documentation related to income which was listed on the Indigency application.
•Evidence of dependents if not listed on the previous documents.

NOTE- If you are an inmate and need to complete an unsworn declaration, please download HERE.

Approval-A notice will be sent to each applicant who qualifies for the Indigency reduction. The notice will provide the due date and the reduced balance owed.

Denial-If an application is denied, a letter of denial will be sent to the individual at the address listed on the most recent surcharge account.

Payment-The payment must be received by the due date or driving privileges will be suspended. If new surcharges are assessed within 90 days of approval for Indigency, those surcharges will be reduced and a letter will be sent to the individual with the new balance due. That new balance must still be paid by the original due date.

New Surcharges-If a surcharge is assessed 90 days or more from the date of Indigency approval (as listed on the approval letter), you will be required submit a new Indigency application for that surcharge. You will receive a notice of approval or denial.

Example of Poverty level as per the Health and Human Services Department:

Law Offices of Hector Gonzalez

909 NE Loop 410 Suite 715, San Antonio, TX 78209 (210) 495-9999 Hector Gonzalez | Google Profile | Google Review |

DWI PLEA BARGAINS IN BEXAR COUNTY

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012

If you or someone you know has had a DWI in Bexar County recently, you probably know about the plea bargains being offered by the prosecution. I have clients come in to my office routinely that plead their case to me. They emphasize that they have no criminal history whatsoever.

They focus on the fact that they have never been in trouble with the law for even as much as a speeding ticket. But now, they have been charged with a DWI 1st. They assume, wrongfully, that because the are good, upstanding citizens who have never been in trouble, that the DA will go easy on them. The truth is that a lack of criminal history makes no difference on what the prosecutor will ask of you in exchange for a plea bargain. Criminal past or not, the DA will generally ask for up to 2 years of probation. They will also ask for you to sit in jail for up to 10 days as a condition of the 2 year probation.

This does not include the fines they will ask for, court costs, community service hours, DWI classes, probation fees and the request for you to install an ignition interlock on your car during your probation. For those of you who don’t know, an ignition interlock is a device that is attached the ignition system in your vehicle. You must blow into it before you can start your car and while you are driving the car for it to continue operating.

Most people are simply embarrased to have the interlock installed in their car because they don’t want their friends, family and co-workers to see it. Honestly, it is embarrasing. Its the modern version of the scarlet letter.

The simple truth is that in Bexar County, if you are charged with DWI its going to be a very unpleasant process. I don’t condone drinking and driving if you’ve had too much. No one would condone it. But if you are charged with DWI, the DA’s office is going to treat your case no differently than if you did have prior arrests or if you do have an alcohol problem.

For more answers to issues involving DWI, you can always call us for a free consultation. Be safe.

Law Offices of Hector Gonzalez

909 NE Loop 410 Suite 715, San Antonio, TX 78209 (210) 495-9999 Hector Gonzalez | Google Profile | Google Review |

Beating your DWI charge

Tuesday, August 7th, 2012

I have many clients come to my office feeling like their case is over before we even step foot into the courthouse for the first time. They normally say “well, I took the breath test and I blew over the limit. They got me!” Or I hear, “they pulled me over and the officer could smell the alcohol on me. They did a blood draw. We can’t fight that. My case is over with.”

The truth is that you can always fight a criminal charge. People seem to forget that a person accused is innocent until proven guilty in a courtroom BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Defending a criminal charge isnt about what happened. Its about what the prosecutor can prove in a courtroom. First the officer has to make a legal and valid stop. (many time they don’t and the evidence on the case can be suppressed.) Second, whatever evidence the officer intends to use against you in court has to be properly obtained. Was there a valid search? Was there a need for a search warrant? If so, was it properly obtained?

If its a DWI charge did the officer give you the nationally recognized standardized tests? Did he administer them properly? Was he correctly trained and certified to give you those tests? Was a breath test or blood test properly given? There are many, many questions that need to be answered before your attorney can determine if the prosecutor has a good case against you.

I had a case today where my client was stopped for speeding. (very common) My client did the field sobriety tests on camera, admitted to drinking a few beers before the stop and gave a breath test which was a .09.

She was technically over the limit but she looked and sounded completely normal on the video. She may have been drinking but she wasn’t intoxicated and in my experience I didnt’ believe a jury would have thought so either. When she initially hired me she was upset thinking she had no choice but to plead guilty because of the breath test.

We set the case for trial and on the day of trial the prosecutor dismissed the case. He agreed that a jury probably wouldnt have found her guilty based on how well she looked on video.

So the bottom line is that just because a police officer arrests you and charges you with an offense doesn’t mean you are guilty of that crime. You should always speak to a competent attorney before you make any decision to waive a jury trial on your case.

There are usually strong defenses to most criminal charges. A guilty plea and a conviction are going to permanently stay on your record. They will haunt you the rest of your life. So never assume that you don’t have a chance in court. There’s always a chance. if you have any questions regarding a criminal charge, feel free to contact our office.

Law Offices of Hector Gonzalez

909 NE Loop 410 Suite 715, San Antonio, TX 78209 (210) 495-9999 Hector Gonzalez | Google Profile | Google Review |

Man Admits To Posing As ATF Agent

Monday, August 6th, 2012

A San Antonio man pleaded guilty Thursday to a charge of impersonating an agent with the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.  Michael Louis Garcia was first encountered in December by a retired ATF agent who once headed that agency’s office in San Antonio the records show.

The retired agent questioned Garcia and he was evasive, according to a criminal complaint.  The retired agent took away the gun and garcia fled, speeding off in a Dodge auto

Garcia faces up to three years in prison when sentenced on Oct 5

Law Offices of Hector Gonzalez

909 NE Loop 410 Suite 715, San Antonio, TX 78209 (210) 495-9999 Hector Gonzalez | Google Profile | Google Review |

Colorado theater shooting victim Jonathan Blunk remembered at Reno funeral

Friday, August 3rd, 2012

Hundreds attending a Friday morning funeral service in Reno celebrated the life of a former Hug High School graduate killed in the July 20 shooting massacre at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater.

Jonathan Thomas “J.T.” Blunk, 26, was remembered for his loyalty, fearless spirit and the ability to use his ear-to-ear grin and humor to lift anyone’s bad mood.

He leaves behind his wife, Chantel, and two children, ages 2 and 4, who affectionately called him “Peanut.” They live in Reno.

Blunk was a U.S. Navy veteran who served three tours of duty in the Middle East. At the time of his death, he was awaiting re-enlistment back into the Navy and living in Aurora, Colo. His goal was to become a Navy Seal.

He had been working at a commercial flooring company, and had previously worked as a security guard in a large Denver mall, his friends said.

Funeral officiant Roland Lackey told the audience at Mountain View Mortuary that law enforcement in Colorado is leaning toward Blunk having possibly charged at the shooter before Blunk was killed.

Blunk’s friend, Jansen Young, has told national media outlets that Blunk threw her to the ground and shielded her from harm after bullets were sprayed into the crowd of moviegoers.

But Blunk’s friend Kyle Dawson said Blunk’s cause of death was listed as a shotgun wound to his chest, which seems to indicate he was not on the ground when he was shot and he could have performed another heroic act.

Dawson told the teary audience that law enforcement told Blunk’s widow that Blunk fit the description of a man who charged at the shooter. The Colorado man said based on where Blunk was found at the scene, “he was trying to get the guy.” Dawson served in the Navy with Blunk, and previously lived with the Blunks while they were stationed in San Diego.

Lackey said the investigation into James Holmes’ alleged deadly shooting spree in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater continues to seek answers. Blunk and 11 others were killed while dozens were wounded during a showing of “The Dark Knight Rises

Law Offices of Hector Gonzalez

909 NE Loop 410 Suite 715, San Antonio, TX 78209 (210) 495-9999 Hector Gonzalez | Google Profile | Google Review |

Repeat drunk drivers most likely to get probation

Friday, August 3rd, 2012

SAN ANTONIO – Lisa Smith choked back tears after jurors last month sentenced the drunk driver who killed her daughter Erica in 2007 to two years in prison.

“No, I do not certainly believe that it was enough time,” Smith said. “I hope someday I will find forgiveness in my heart but it is very difficult.”

The trial of 32-year-old Jenny Ybarra was what most people expect from a high-profile drunk driving case resulting in death – intense media coverage and a dramatic trial capped by a jail sentence handed down by 12 jurors. But that’s not how the overwhelming majority of felony drunk-driving cases are handled in Bexar Country courts.

Most felony DWI defendants have not killed anyone and rarely get prison time. In Bexar County, the majority of those charged with DWI for the third time or more are still most likely to again be placed on probation, despite having been put on community supervision for prior DWI convictions.

An analysis of three years worth of court records obtained from the Bexar County District Clerk reveals 52 percent of felony DWI offenders across all Bexar County District Courts get probation in cases where the sentence is decided by a judge.

Court

Judge

Probation

Sentence %

Total Cases

144th

Catherine Torres-Stahl*

60%

40%

139

175th

Mary Roman

42%

58%

137

186th

Maria Teresa “Tessa” Herr

63%

37%

162

187th

Raymond Angelini

60%

40%

141

226th

Sid Harle

44%

56%

156

227th

Philip Kazen

53%

47%

133

290th

Sharon McRae*

47%

53%

147

379th

Ron Rangel

59%

41%

145

399th

Juanita Vasquez-Gardner

42%

58%

142

437th

Lori Valenzuela**

39%

61%

46

ALL COURTS

52%

48%

This data is reflective of District Court felonies in Bexar County for the offense classified as DWI 3rd (meaning 3rd or more) from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010

Source of the raw data is the Bexar County District Clerk. The percentages represent cases where a judgment was entered by the court.

* No longer in office

** Appointed 12/15/09

“I’m surprised to see this number. It’s disappointing to see that more people are getting probation versus being sentenced to the fullest extent of the law,” says Jennifer Northway, executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving-South Texas. “Because at this point it’s been moved up to the district court, and it should be considered a very serious, egregious problem that needs to be nipped in the bud.”

First and second DWI misdemeanors are handled in County courts. A third DWI charge becomes a felony taken up in District courts.

“I sent most of them to prison,” says District Attorney Susan Reed, a former judge, referring to convicted drunk drivers in her court. “There still has got to be a consequence. That’s what we try to insure when we look at recommendations we make.”

The court data also gives a glimpse into how each District judge handles these types of cases, including which jurists hand out the most prison time. The toughest on third-time offenders are Mary Roman in the 175th District Court and Juanita Vasquez-Gardner in the 399th, with both sending 58 percent to prison.

Maria Teresa “Tessa” Herr in the 186th hands down the least amount of prison time for DWI convictions, putting only 37 percent of felony offenders in her court behind bars. The judge with the second lowest rate is Raymond Angelini in the 187th, who sends 40 percent of DWI convicts in his court to jail.

“I would like to know a little bit more, especially for those courts where we do see that there is over a 50-percent probation rate,” Northway says. “I would really like to know what’s going in the 144th, 187th, and 186th.

Defense attorney Nico LaHood, who represents defendants in drunk-driving cases, isn’t surprised by the variances in sentencing. “There is no cookie cutter way to handle a DWI third,” he says.

LaHood points out third-time DWI offenses come with the possibility of two to 10 years in prison, or as much as 10 years of probation, as well as a fine of up to $10,000.

“That’s a big range of what can happen. So what they’re telling us is that not every situation is the same,” he says. “There’s so much more to this story than just saying judges are too easy, or this should be different, because it’s not a black and white answer.”

District judges contacted for this story did not respond to requests for comment. But a judge who asked not to be identified because he still presides over DWI cases explained how sentences in DWI cases are usually decided.

“One of the things you look at is, when did the first two convictions occur? That’s the first thing you look at,” the judge says. “Was he on probation when he committed the third offense? Was it 10 years ago or 15 years ago?”

The judge explains he’s more likely to hand down prison time to those who’ve gotten caught driving under the influence again not long after their second conviction.

“Those guys make me nervous,” he says. “I would be less inclined to grant probation on somebody like that, unless the state is recommending it because there is some underlying problem with the case, or unless there is some really compelling arguments on why you’d want to do that – because they are the most dangerous. They are getting [convictions] back to back, and there’s no intervention or no stopping it.”

Every drunk-driving defendant who lands in District court goes through an intense evaluation conducted by Bexar County probation department to determine if there is an alternative to incarceration. For those deemed not to be a threat to society, the recommendations usually include ignition interlocks and alcohol treatment, and they are required to wear ankle bracelets that detect alcohol if they drink.

“They’re nonviolent offenders and we have ways to control them on the outside,” says Sheri Simonelli, president of the Bexar County Probation Officers Association.

That’s the approach favored by Jamie Balagia, a defense attorney known as “The DWI Dude.”

“We are creating criminals, and we don’t have to,” Balagia says. “As a taxpayer, I don’t want to pay $60,000 a year to keep [someone] who would otherwise be a productive citizen locked up when we could have him out here paying taxes and working.”

Reed has a virtual zero-tolerance policy on drunk driving. But in an effort to clear misdemeanor DWI cases clogging dockets in County courts, she established an alternative offense in 2008 called “obstruction of a highway – intoxication” for first-time offenders. That charge comes with rigorous conditions of probation. But Reed believes repeat offenders – whom she has targeted with mandatory blood draws in cases where they refuse a sobriety test – should do time.

“I think it is necessary when you have repeat offenses to increase punishment as you go,” said Reed. Asked if that meant prison time for third-time offenders, she replied: “I think it should.”

Although the current statistics are alarming to some, the number of cases in which defendants only get probation has dropped over the last decade. A similar analysis I conducted back in 2002 revealed 58 percent of felony DWI convicts at the time got probation – 6 percentage points higher than we find today.

Defense lawyer Shawn Brown thinks he knows what’s caused the decline in in cases where a judge gives probation.

“The numbers are coming down in Bexar County, and I think a lot of it is the media telling stories of accidents,” Brown says. “People are upset about it and the courts are feeling pressure.”

But as with most discussions of prison sentencing in Texas, the issue ultimately comes down to availability of prison space. “We’re seeing judges take into consideration the jail overcrowding issue, and trying to figure out what they can do to still put some sanctions in place but not have to ‘burden’ the jails,” Northway says.

But it’s the certainty of time behind bars that MADD believes would make many drunk drivers think twice.

“So people are being able to skirt around [prison sentences], because of time served or what have you,” Northway says. “But at the end of the day it’s still not enacting a strict sanction, which is ultimately what is going to change people’s behavior.”

Law Offices of Hector Gonzalez

909 NE Loop 410 Suite 715, San Antonio, TX 78209 (210) 495-9999 Hector Gonzalez | Google Profile | Google Review |

Blood draws and no refusal weekends

Friday, August 3rd, 2012

We have all heard about the “No refusal weekends”. They have become an everyday tool in law enforcements anti-DWI campaign in San Antonio and the rest of our state.
On these “no refusal weekends” a judge is on standby to sign a warrant authorizing police officers to take a “blood sample” when a driver refuses to take the breathalyzer.
Early this year, the Second District Court of Appeals, in Farhat v. State, reversed a DWI conviction involving the use of “blood evidence seized with a warrant.” The appellate court in Farhat found that the probable cause affidavit used to secure the blood draw warrant did not have a sufficient factual basis. In Farhat, the arresting officer, of the Highland Village Police Department, located in Denton County, decided to stop Farhat after the officer observed him driving ten miles per hour below the posted 40 miles per hour limit. The officer saw his vehicle weaving from side to side, and his signaling a right-hand turn before turning left into a fast-food restaurant.
When the officer approached Farhat’s vehicle, the officer noticed two pill bottles in the center console. Finley asked for Farhat to exit his vehicle and perform standardized field sobriety tests. Farhat refused and was placed under arrest. The officer prepared a “sworn affidavit” for a blood-draw search warrant which was issued by a magistrate based on the affidavit. The affidavit read as follows:
“On 01-11-2008 at approximately 0050 hours, I, Cpl. Finley #516 was driving eastbound in the 1900 block of Justin Road and visually observed a vehicle turning from Sellmeyer onto Justine road. I turned around at the light and started westbound when I could see the vehicle driving very slow approximately 30 miles an hour in a 40 miles per hour zone. I pulled my vehicle behind the vehicle a silver BMW with dealer plates. The vehicle was weaving from sided [sic] to side and continued for about a half a mile in the left lane. As the vehicle approached the KFC parking lot the vehicle turned on the right turn signal and crossed over the left lane into the parking lot. I activated my overhead lights and conducted a traffic stop in the parking lot at 2180 Justin road KFC. I noticed two pill bottles in the center console and asked where the driver later identified as Farhat. I asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle to check to see if he was ok to drive. The defendant refused to do any road side test and was placed in double locked properly spaced handcuffs.”
Based on the officers affidavit, a magistrate judge issued a blood draw search warrant which revealed enough evidence to warrant the formal charging of Farhat with DWI. He was subsequently convicted of a Class B misdemeanor DWI charge, sentenced to 160 days confinement, probated for 18 months, and fined $600. He raised one issue on appeal: Officer Finley’s sworn affidavit did not provide a substantial basis for the magistrate to conclude there was probable cause for the issuance of the blood draw search warrant.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in Beeman v. State, held that under Art. 18.01, Texas Code of criminal procedure, the police may obtain an individual’s blood through a search warrant when conducting a DWI investigation. However, as the appeals court in Farhat cautioned, “a search cannot issue unless it is based on probable cause as determined from the four corners of an affidavit.” Article 18.01 requires an affidavit to set forth the following facts:
• That a specific offense has been committed;
• The items to be seized constitutes evidence of the offense or evidence that a particular person committed the offense; and
• The item is located at or on the person, place, or thing to be searched.
The Texas Court of Appeals, in Flores v. State, and the United States Supreme Court, in Illinois v. Gates, have held that probable cause, under the totality of the circumstances presented to the magistrate in an affidavit, must establish that there exists at least a “fair probability” or “substantial chance” that evidence of a crime or other contraband will be found at a specified location. The Supreme Court in Gates specifically held that an affidavit must contain “sufficient information” from which the magistrate can determine probable cause because the magistrate’s action “cannot be a mere ratification of conclusions of others” and to prevent such “ratification” decision-making, courts must “conscientiously review the sufficiency of affidavits on which warrants are issued.”
The appeals court in Farhat then cited the seven factors within the “four corners” of Officer Finley’s affidavit used to demonstrate probable cause for the blood draw search warrant:
• Farhat was driving 30 miles per hour in a forty-mile-per-hour zone at approximately 12:50 a.m.;
• He was weaving from side to side;
• He continued in the left lane for about one-half mile;
• He turned on his right-turn signal but turned left into a KFC restaurant’s parking lot;
• The officer, upon stopping Farhat, saw two pill bottles in the center console of Farhat’s vehicle;
• Farhat refused a field sobriety test; and
• Corporal Finley believed that Farhat had committed DWI.
The magistrate and the trial court accepted these factors as sufficient to establish probable cause in the Farhat case. In its written findings of fact, the trial court further found probable cause that Farhat was driving while intoxicated “based on the erratic driving behavior, the pills in the console, and the officer’s opportunity to personally observe the driver.”
The appeals court in Farhat’s case found that the officer’s affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause. The appeals court was especially concerned that the affidavit made no mention of the arresting officer’s observations. Citing Cassias v. State, the appeals court said “’it is one thing to draw reasonable inferences from information clearly set forth within the four corners of the affidavit … [but] it is quite another matter to read material information into an affidavit that does not otherwise appear on its face.’” The appeals court added that because the officer’s affidavit was totally devoid of any of his personal observations, “the affidavit contain[ed] no facts within its four corners from which the magistrate could have reasonably inferred from Farhat’s demeanor, behavior, or appearance that there was fair probability or substantial chance that Farhat had committed the offense of DWI or that evidence of intoxication would be found in Farhat’s blood.”
To illustrate these findings the appeals court pointed out that while the officer observed two pill bottles in the center console, the officer did not state whether the bottles contained pills; whether they were prescription or over-the-counter medication; whether Farhat admitted to taking the pills; or whether Farhat’s demeanor suggested he had taken them.
And while erratic driving behavior and the refusal to take field sobriety tests are part of the “totality of circumstances” which may considered in finding probable cause to issue a warrant, the appeals court stressed that Farhat’s case was about whether there was probable cause to issue an invasive “blood draw” warrant, not whether the Officer had “reasonable suspicion” to stop Farhat.
The Farhat ruling is instructive in “blood draw” warrants issued during the so-called “no refusal weekends.” These warrants are often based on nothing more than a suspected DWI driver’s refusal to cooperate with field sobriety tests. Absent a sworn affidavit with detailed facts indicating intoxication, the Farhat decision indicates that refusal to voluntarily submit to a blood draw alone is an insufficient basis for probable cause to issue a warrant for the forced blood draw. As the Farhat court concluded: “The only evidence that Farhat was intoxicated came from the results of a blood test, obtained in violation of Farhat’s constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. We are thus unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court’s error in denying Farhat’s motion to suppress did not contribute to Farhat’s conviction or punishment for DWI.”

Law Offices of Hector Gonzalez

909 NE Loop 410 Suite 715, San Antonio, TX 78209 (210) 495-9999 Hector Gonzalez | Google Profile | Google Review |

San Antonio Criminal Defense

Saturday, July 7th, 2012

Law Offices of Hector Gonzalez

909 NE Loop 410 Suite 715, San Antonio, TX 78209 (210) 495-9999 Hector Gonzalez | Google Profile | Google Review |

DWI Death

Monday, July 2nd, 2012

Jail time meted as probation condition.  A former Army private who was sentenced by a jury last month to serve probation after pleading guilty to a wrong way drunken driving death on U.S. 90 was ordered by a judge Monday to serve 1,000 hours of community service.

Jacob Vincent Perez was also sent back to jail where he has been since his trial ended to serve the remainder of  a six month stretch imposed as a condition of probation.

Being arrested for a DWI or intoxication manslaughter is serious,  If you or a family are facing similar charges contact an experienced San Antonio criminal attorney immediately at 210 495 9999

Tiempo de cárcel impuesto como condición de libertad condicional. Ex ejército privado que fue condenado por un jurado el mes pasado a servir de libertad condicional después de declararse culpable a una muerte de conducción completamente borracha mal en Estados Unidos 90 fue ordenado por un juez el lunes para servir de 1.000 horas de servicio comunitario.

Jacob Vincent Pérez también fue enviado a la cárcel donde ha sido desde su juicio terminado para servir el resto de un tramo de seis meses impuesta como condición de libertad condicional.

Ser detenido por un homicidio de DWI o intoxicación es grave, si usted o un familiar se enfrentan a cargos similares contacto un abogado Penal de San Antonio experimentado inmediatamente a 210 495 9999

Law Offices of Hector Gonzalez

909 NE Loop 410 Suite 715, San Antonio, TX 78209 (210) 495-9999 Hector Gonzalez | Google Profile | Google Review |

Cop Injured In Hit & Run

Monday, July 2nd, 2012

A motorist suspected of driving drunk is accused of fleeing the scene after a pickup crashed into an off duty san antonio police officer.

James Bennack is being held in Bexar County Jail on charges of intoxication assault and failure to stop and render aid.

His bail was set at $60,000.  Around 11 pm Saturday four year veteran Albert Trevino was on his first day of vacation and riding a motorcycle south of Fredericksburg road when a pickup traveling the same direction tried to pass another car.

Officer Trevino was taken to University Hospital, where he was in stable condition.  San Antonio police officers and bexar county officers are the best in the business.  Tragic accidents like this can happen at any time.

James needs and deserves the best criminal defense possible,  my consultations are free and I can be reached at 210 495 9999Un motorista sospechoso de conducir ebrio es acusado de huir de la escena después de que una camioneta se estrelló contra un deber off oficial de policía de san antonio.

James Bennack se celebrará en la cárcel del Condado de Bexar por cargos de asalto de la intoxicación y no parar y prestar ayuda.

Su fianza fue fijada en $60.000. Alrededor de 23 Sábado cuatro veterano Albert Trevino viajaba en su primer día de vacaciones y conducir una motocicleta al sur de Fredericksburg road cuando una camioneta de la misma dirección que trataron de pasar a otro auto.

Trevino oficial fue llevado al Hospital Universitario, donde se encontraba en condición estable. Agentes de la policía de San Antonio y los oficiales del Condado de bexar son los mejores en el negocio. Accidentes trágicos como este pueden suceder en cualquier momento.

James necesita y merece la mejor defensa penal posible, mis consultas son gratis y puedo ser alcanzó 210 495 9999

Law Offices of Hector Gonzalez

909 NE Loop 410 Suite 715, San Antonio, TX 78209 (210) 495-9999 Hector Gonzalez | Google Profile | Google Review |