By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer
SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home Criminal Defense Traffic Tickets Legal Articles

HOUSTON—In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported a total of 37,261 auto accident fatalities in the United States; 11,773 (32 percent) of which involved a driver whose blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. Perhaps even more disturbing are statistics that show Texas as the national leader in alcohol-related crashes, with 1,269 drunk driving deaths documented that year.

Given this information, it’s easy to see why alcohol and drug-related traffic offenses, commonly known as Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), are frequently prosecuted criminal offenses in Texas. If the alcohol concentration in a person’s blood, breath or urine is .08 percent or higher, the person is considered intoxicated by law.

In some cases under Texas DWI law, the legal definition of intoxication is met even if a person’s blood alcohol concentration is lower than .08 percent. Having alcohol, drugs or a controlled substance in one’s body that causes loss of normal use of mental or physical faculties is also considered intoxication. If a person is operating a vehicle, vessel or even water skis in a public place, he or she is considered to be DWI, which is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas. Boating and operating an aircraft while intoxicated are also considered to be crimes.

The minimum amount of jail time in Texas for DWI is 72 hours, unless there is an open container of alcohol in the person’s possession, in which case the jail time is at least six days. Consuming any amount of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle is also an offense in Texas.

In addition to jail time, a person who is convicted of DWI the first time will have his or her driver’s license suspended for 90 days up to one year. Even if there is no conviction, the positive indication of alcohol from a blood, breath or urine test will result in automatic suspension of the person’s driver’s license. The option to complete a court-approved DWI education course within 180 days of conviction may be offered as a means of avoiding this suspension. A person who fails to complete such a program when sentenced to do so may lose his or her license. If the case presents unusual facts (i.e.—an accident, alcohol problem, bad driving record, etc.), additional conditions may be imposed. Most conditions are designed to address a problem that appears from the facts or alcohol/drug evaluation that is performed on the subject after conviction and include, but are not limited to, the installation of an ignition interlock device; alcohol treatment; an order to consume no alcohol; confinement; and restitution.

A DWI Second Offense is considered a Class A Misdemeanor, and requires the court to order, as a condition of release from jail on bond, the installation and maintenance of an ignition interlock device. This machine requires a breath sample before it will allow an individual to start his or her car, and periodic samples while driving to monitor and ensure sobriety. New technology has made the devices “user sensitive” so that another person cannot blow into the machine for the accused.

A DWI Third Offense (or greater) is considered a Third Degree Felony in Texas, and comes with a mandatory jail sentence of not less than two years nor more than ten years, along with many other stipulations and restrictions.

Refusing to submit to a blood, breath or urine test in Texas also carries penalties. If an officer has reason to believe that a person is driving while intoxicated, and the driver refuses to submit to a test, the person’s driver’s license will be automatically suspended for a minimum of 90 days if the person is 21 years of age or older, and for at least one year if the person is under 21. The period of license suspension increases with every subsequent test that shows an alcohol concentration above the legal limit, and with each time a person refuses to submit to alcohol testing. For example, if a person refuses to be tested for intoxication and there has been an alcohol or drug related conviction or license suspension within the previous five years, the person will lose his or her license automatically for one year. Under any circumstances, however, the person is entitled to a hearing.

In spite of these consequences, the number of DWI arrestees in Texas refusing to submit to a test has remained at roughly 50 percent. As a result, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices across the state have begun to use search warrants to obtain blood samples when suspects refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test, in a new program called “No-Refusal Weekends”. According to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, the initiative aims to “ensure a breath or blood sample from every suspect pulled over for suspected DWI, full prosecution of these offenders, and, more importantly, a decrease in the number of fatalities over holidays.”

During no-refusal operations, which to date have been held during major holiday weekends, if a suspect is arrested on suspicion of DWI and refuses to submit to a breath or blood test, the arresting officer prepares an affidavit in support of a search warrant application. The affidavit must recite facts that demonstrate that the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect is under the influence, and that evidence of alcohol or drugs will be found in their blood. The officer then presents the affidavit to a judge who reviews if for probable cause. In practice, the police rarely appear in person to swear to the affidavit. Rather, the typical practice is for them to fax it or recite it over the phone to a judge who is “on call” for the operation. Once the warrant is approved, the arresting officer can obtain a blood sample without the suspect’s consent.

No-Refusal Weekends have been met with opposition from citizens claiming they are a violation of basic rights and the Constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure. Proponents, however, argue that not only will the program pull offenders from the streets, it may serve as a deterrent to those who previously thought they could side-step the law.

“If you or someone you know has had the misfortune of being involved in a drunk driving incident and need legal assistance, the experienced attorneys at Sullo & Sullo, LLP are here to help. Contact us at 713-839-9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com to schedule your free consultation today.”

————————————————————-
Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at http://www.sullolaw.com/.
————–
Best regards,

Sullo
Legal Attorneys Firm
Sullolaw.com – Sullo Sullo
Houston tx usa 77098
http://www.sullolaw.com/

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer

SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home | Criminal Defense | Traffic Tickets | Legal Articles

HOUSTON—It is common knowledge that drunken-driving laws in America vary from state-to-state, but in Texas, they often differ between counties. This “checkerboard” system of enforcement has recently come under fire, with local judges, lawmakers and upset residents calling for congruent reform and the elimination of hefty surcharges often imposed on top of criminal penalties.

Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, D-Houston, has taken special issue with the state’s Driver Responsibility Program (DRP), which includes a surcharge of $1000 annually for three years for first-time driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) offenders. Too often, motorists simply opt not to pay the fines, which Whitmire and law officers said means more people driving without licenses or insurance.

The DRP was created in 2003 as a funding tool for trauma care centers and transportation projects. The program established a system that assigns points to moving violations, and applies subsequent automatic surcharges to offenders.

Under the DRP:

Points are accumulated for moving violation convictions. For any consecutive three-year period in which a driver accumulates 6 points, he or she is assessed a $100 annual surcharge that is imposed annually until such time as his or her point total drops below 6. Each additional point on a driver’s record will cost an additional $25 a year;

Under the program, driving while intoxicated carries an automatic $1,000 annual surcharge for a first offense. Each subsequent conviction carries an additional $1,500 annual surcharge;

Driving without a license carries a $150 penalty, plus a $100 annual surcharge, making the total violation $450. Driving with an invalid license would cost a driver $150, plus a $250 annual surcharge, making the total violation $900;

Texans caught driving without proof of insurance would be required to pay a $250 fee, plus an automatic annual surcharge of $250 for three years from the date of their conviction, making the total cost of the violation $1,000; and Should a driver commit one of these latter two violations again within that three years, they would be assessed an additional annual surcharge.

Critics of the program argue that many Texans affected by these automatic surcharges are first-time offenders, students, single parents or low-income families, who are faced the choice of either complying with the law or paying for their education, rent food or emergency expenses like car repairs or medical bills. Others simply opt not to pay, and as of April 2010, 1.2 million Texans owed the state more than $1 billion in unpaid surcharges.

For proponents of the DRP, whatever money has been collected through the program has been a godsend. Quoted in the July 2010 issue of Texas Medicine Magazine, Dr. Ronald Stuart, MD, chair of the Trauma Stystems Committee of the Governor’s EMS & Trauma Advisory Council (GETAC) said, “The expansion of Texas trauma centers under the DRP has led to improved coverage of timely access to care when people need it the most. What we’re talking about is access and quality of care…[which is] why preserving the DRP and other funding programs is important.”

Dr. Stewart said that most trauma physicians and trauma facility administrators are sympathetic to the challenges inherent in the DRP and are willing to work to improve the program. “We’re not opposed to making the system better. We believe that in spite of its problems, the DRP is, in general, a fair and equitable way to pay for uncompensated trauma care in Texas.”

Dr. Stewart’s opponents, however, couldn’t disagree more.

With Texas’ varying DWI laws, Sen. Whitmire asserts prosecutors are recognizing that the surcharges imposed by the program are “a burden [defendants] can’t meet and they’re allowing them to plead to something other than DWI.” He voiced concern that the absence of a formal DWI charge would hide an individual’s first drunken-driving offense, allowing him to avoid enhanced penalties if he offends again.

In Harris County, for example, District Attorney Pat Lykos’ office allows defendants facing drunken driving charges for the first time to plead guilty to DWI with the option of completing a strictly probated program, after which the conviction can be wiped off their record. And in Bexar County, District Attorney Susan Reed dealt with a backlog of cases by allowing first-time DWI offenders to plead instead to a charge of “obstruction of a highway—intoxication”. Both options allow the accused to avoid the DRP-imposed surcharges.

Perhaps the only thing that parties on either side of the debate can agree on is that the DRP is not perfect, and as such, the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, headed by Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, has been given the responsibility of vetting it before the 2011 legislative session. The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) is also working on new rules for the program to ease the surcharges for lower-income drivers.

Until such time that the existing surcharges are reduced or eliminated, being charged with DWI anywhere in Texas can have serious and life-changing consequences. If you or someone you know has been involved in a drunk driving incident, contact the experienced team of attorneys at Sullo & Sullo, LLP. Our lawyers understand how much is at stake in a DWI case and will fight for your rights. Call us at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com for a free legal consultation today.

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer

SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home | Criminal Defense | Traffic Tickets | Legal Articles

HOUSTON—If you or someone close to you has been injured in an accident, you know how physically and emotionally traumatic the experience can be. It stands to reason then, that accident victims should be given time to recover and fully understand the ramifications of the accident before they are expected to negotiate personal injury compensation.

Unfortunately, insurance companies have begun to employ a settlement method called “third party capture” with alarming frequency, despite mounting criticism from consumers, legal experts and injury watchdogs. The practice involves contacting injured victims of accidents—people who would potentially make a claim for personal injury compensation—directly, and offering them a settlement before they have taken legal advice. These offers are often far less than the amount of compensation the victim could have received if he or she had first consulted with an injury claims specialist.

Insurers defend the method, which they refer to as “third party assistance”, as a means of reducing unnecessary legal costs and enabling claimants to receive compensation more quickly than if they contact a legal representative. Consumer and claimant groups, however, argue that the practice puts undue pressure on victims to accept lower settlements, and to settle without considering all of their options.

In December 2009, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) concluded that third party capture was not inherently detrimental to claimants, but that there was a risk, in some cases, that they would settle for less than what they were entitled to. The findings, published in a fact sheet, reminded insurers of their obligations to make sure unrepresented claimants were fully informed of their rights—including their right to independent legal advice—and that their interests were properly safeguarded.

In response to the FSA’s release, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) published a voluntary code of practice on “third party assistance” and a consumer guide. Under the code, unsolicited personal visits are banned, and insurers are only allowed to contact unrepresented claimants for the first time by telephone, text, email or letter. Phone calls are to be followed up in writing, and texts are limited to one message asking the claimant to call back. If there is no response, no further texts are to be sent. The code also states that at each stage of the process, insurers must remind claimants of their right to seek independent legal advice and of the other options for pursuing their claim, such as through the court.

In June 2010, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) responded with a warning to consumers to “Beware of the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’,” referring to the ABI’s insurance guide. “[We have] been long concerned about a growing trend for the insurer of the person who caused the injury to make direct contact with the victim, offering to settle the compensation claim direct,” the APIL said in a press release. “We have sent evidence to the FSA to illustrate occasions when insurers have quite clearly attempted to under-settle claims in these circumstances…[and] have also heard about quite shameful pressure to settle being brought to bear on vulnerable and injured people.”

One of APIL’s key concerns is that most people know nothing about the compensation system, which makes it difficult for them to judge whether or not the compensation they are being offered is fair or correct. They also express concern about the part of this approach that involves people being “cold-called” by insurers, when they are at their most vulnerable.

The APIL recommends that injured parties seek independent advice about such key aspects of their case as medical reports, rehabilitation, and the level of compensation to be expected. What is cited in the ABI’s guide as an “unnecessary” legal cost might make all the difference in putting someone’s life back on track after being sidelined by a needless injury.

If you or someone you know has been the victim of an accident and require independent legal advice to receive the compensation you deserve, contact the experienced team at Sullo & Sullo, LLP. Our lawyers understand how difficult it can be to recover from the emotional, physical and financial setbacks of a personal injury and are here to help. Call us at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com for a free legal consultation today.

By Megan Breckenridge, Staff Writer

SULLO & SULLO, LLP

Home | Criminal Defense | Traffic Tickets | Legal Articles

HOUSTON — we’ve all heard the sobering statistics about divorce rates in the United States, where the cost of dissolving a marriage is relatively low and the process simple. But for high-profile couples with piles of cash and material assets, parting ways can be a costly and complicated affair.

Anyone with cable or Internet access knows the sordid details of Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren’s split, which is rumored, will soon be settled for a staggering $100 million. Amazingly, theirs will not be the most expensive A-list divorce to date. Here is a look some of the costliest celebrity divorces:

 1. Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall. Estimated settlement: $15 to 25 million.

 The Rolling Stones’ front man and sexy supermodel met in 1977 and had two children together before tying the knot in a traditional Hindi wedding ceremony in Bali, Indonesia in 1990. Hall filed for divorce in 1999 after learning that Jagger had fathered a child with another woman. Jagger, worth an estimated $325 million at the time, successfully challenged the legality of the Balinese wedding and was granted an annulment. Hall walked away with only a fraction of his estate.

 2. Michael and Diandra Douglas. Estimated settlement: $45 million.

 The couple met in 1977 at a Jimmy Carter inauguration party and wed six weeks later. During the course of their marriage, Michael became one of Hollywood’s top earning actors, starring in box office hits like Fatal Attraction, Wall Street and Basic Instinct. Amid rumors of the actor’s infidelities and alcohol abuse, the couple separated in 1998. Diandra was awarded an estimated $45 million in 2000, plus homes in Beverly Hills and Majorca.

In June 2010, the couple returned to court to dispute Diandra’s claim to a portion of the proceeds from Michael’s upcoming Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. If the film is ruled to be a spin-off of the original Wall Street, which Michael filmed while they were together, Diandra will be entitled to a share of his earnings per their divorce settlement.

 3. James Cameron and Linda Hamilton. Estimated settlement: $50 million.

The famed director wed the star of his first two Terminator movies in July 1997. Though their marriage lasted a mere 18 months, they conceived a daughter together during that time. Their divorce settled shortly after Titanic was released, and Cameron was forced to give Hamilton more than half of the film’s revenues.

 4. Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills. Estimated settlement: $50 million.

 The Beatles rocker married the former model and charity campaigner in 2002, with McCartney reportedly shunning Mills’ offer of a prenuptial agreement. In 2006, the pair began bitter divorce proceedings, which garnered a great deal of press and were not resolved until March of 2008. They have a daughter together who, in addition to Mills’ nearly $50 million settlement, will receive over $44,000 per year until her 18th birthday.

 5. Madonna and Guy Ritchie. Estimated settlement: $76 million.

 The Material Girl wed the British film director in 2000, two years after they met at a dinner party hosted by Sting and his wife Trudie Styler. The pair have two children together, Rocco, 8, and David, 3, who was adopted from Malawi. They share custody of the kids, and Madonna shared a large chunk of her estimated $450 million net worth with Ritchie when they settled their divorce for $76 million in 2008.

 6. Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving. Estimated settlement: $100 million.

 Famed director Spielberg and up-and-coming actress Irving met in 1979, had a son, and later married in 1985. But by 1989 the passion between them had fizzled and the amicably parted ways, with Spielberg giving Irving a $100 million settlement to show there were no hard feelings.

 7. Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphey. Estimated settlement: $150 million.

 Neil Diamond has known international signing success since the ‘60s and during his career has sold more than one million records worldwide. When he met the woman who would share his life for 25 years, he was already married to his first wife.

               Apparently Diamond went out for cigarettes in November 1969 and never returned. Three weeks later he had divorced and married TV producer Marcia Murphey. In 1994, following rumors of extramarital affairs on Diamond’s part, Murphey filed for divorce citing “irreconcilable differences”. Their settlement was for $150 million, half his fortune, which the singer claims he gave her cheerfully. “She’s worth every penny,” he said.

 8. Rupert and Anna Murdoch. Estimated settlement: $1.7 billion.                                               

One of the richest men in the world, Rupert Murdoch developed his worldwide media empire when he inherited his father’s Australian newspaper in 1952. He married Anna in the early ‘60s and they remained together for 32 years and had three children.

                The pair split on good terms in 1998 but when Rupert forced Anna off the board of News Corporation, things turned ugly. Rupert finally agreed to give his wife $1.7 billion worth of his assets, $110 million of it in cash. 17 days later, Rupert married Wendi Dang, one of his employees.

 As you can see, the higher the net-worth of the individuals involved, the messier the divorce proceedings may be. If you or someone you know is faced with the dissolution of a marriage, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help.

Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026 or visit our website at www.sullolaw.com.

Follow on Buzz

Home || Criminal Defense || Traffic Tickets || Legal Articles

Traffic Ticket in Texas

The first move and the penalty is not a pleasant experience. If you do not exceed the speed limit, which may also further disappointment. If you have a ticket, you have other options instead of paying the ticket. If you live in Texas, the following steps can help you dismiss your ticket and get your driving record.

Instructions.

1. Step1

One option is to sign up for a defensive driving class. You can do this via the Internet, of course, not online. Or you can find a defensive driving course within your community and make a personal visit.

2. Step1

If not take the defensive driving course or do not have time to go to pass a course, please contact the office of the court and ask for the postponement of the court. If you want information, they should for a while in the office of the Court, the proceedings of this process. Normally, writes a letter requesting postponement of the court process begins.

3. Step1

Another 3rd option is to contest your traffic or parking court. But we know that maybe if I think you should have received the ticket and if you’re willing to appear in court and speak under oath about the circumstances.

4. Step1

. Note you decide to take your case in court contesting a ticket, and you lose the case, you will probably be liable for court costs in addition to the fine.

Home || Criminal Defense || Traffic Tickets || Legal Articles

Traffic Ticket

A traffic ticket is a summons and quote issued by police officers to motorists and other road users who are unsuccessful to mind traffic laws. Traffic tickets generally come in two forms; cite a moving violation, such as more than the speed limit, or a non-moving violation, such as a parking ticket. Traffic tickets are generally heard in traffic court.

Generally, a ticket is a notice that one has committed a minor or sometimes major legal violation, for which a fine must be paid and postmarked and sent by the due date, and/or an appearance in court must be made (See: order). Typically, this means a parking ticket for parking in an unlawful way or allowing a parking meter to expire, or a traffic ticket for a moving violation such as speeding. The latter are usually issued after traffic stops.

A traffic ticket may go by the more proper name of violation ticket.

Characteristically, a traffic ticket is handed to a driver straight away after the offence has been observed by a police or traffic officer. Though, it can also be delivered by mail is the case with photo radar tickets.

The traffic ticket sets out the nature and detail of the alleged offence. Typical information includes:

• An claim that you have broken a traffic act including the accurate section of the law being relied upon;

• The name of the authority

• The name of the traffic decree which has been supposedly broken or pursuant to which the ticket is issued;

• The date, time and place of the alleged offence;

• The name and address of the person to whom the ticket is issued;

• Identification of the vehicle including license plate; and

• Information on how to contest or dispute the allegation including the name and address of the place to either acknowledge the allegation or pay the fine, or to contest the ticket.

Speeding ticket –

A ticket issue for driving above the speed bound Ticket – an order issued to a lawbreaker (especially to someone who violates a traffic regulation).

United State Traffic laws…

In the United States, most traffic laws are codified in a variety of state, county and municipal ordinances, with most minor violations classified as civil infractions. Although what constitutes a “minor violation” varies, examples include: non-moving violations; defective or unauthorized vehicle equipment; seat belt and child-restraint safety violations; and insufficient proof of license, insurance or registration. A trend in the late 1970s and early 1980s also saw an increased tendency for jurisdictions to re-classify certain speeding violation as civil infractions.^[1] In contrast, for more “serious” violations, traffic violators may be held criminally liable, guilty of a misdemeanor or even a felony. Serious violations tend to involve multiple prior offenses; willful disregard of public safety; death, serious bodily injury or damage to property. ^[1]

Each state’s section of Motor Vehicles maintains a file of motorists, as well as their convicted traffic violations. Upon being ticketed, a motorist is given the option to mail in to the local court—the court for the town or city in which the violation took place—a plea of guilty or not guilty within a certain time frame (usually ten days, although courts generally provide leniency in this regard).^[2]

If the motorist pleads not guilty, a trial date is set and both the motorist, or a lawyer/representative on behalf of the motorist, and the ticketing officer, are required to attend. The motorist may be given the chance to move the hearing for a reason such as “a work disagreement or travel”, and rearrange the hearing for a time at which the ticketing officer is improbable to attend. ^[2] If the officer or representative fails to attend, the court judge will often find in good turn of the motorist and allow going the charge, ^[2] although sometimes the trial date is moved to give the officer another chance to attend. The court will also make supplies for the officer or prosecutor to attain a deal with the motorist, often in the form of a plea bargain that may reduce the impact from that which would be incurred from pleading guilty without attending court.^[2][3] If no agreement is reached, and the prosecutor feels it is worth his time to charge the motorist, both motorist and officer, or their respective representatives, officially attempt to prove their case before the judge, who then decides the matter.^[2] The motorist may, for example, put forward a reason the violation they are is accused of was justified, such as to “get out of the way of an ambulance or avoid a collision with another motorist”, and call into doubt the level to which the officer recall the specific details of the state of affairs among the many tickets they have issued.^[2] For relatively minor offences, this strategy is usually effective- the National Motorists Association, which provides a kit outlining how to fight a traffic ticket to its members, goes so far as to offer to pay fines for members who challenge their tickets in court and are found guilty.^[3]

If the motorist pleads guilty, the result is equivalent to conviction after trial. Upon confidence, the motorist is generally fined a monetary amount and, for moving violations, is additionally given “point” demerits, under each state’s point system. In the cases where the motorist is registered in a different state from where the violation took place, individual agreements between the two states decide if, and how, the motorist’s home state applies the other state’s confidence. If no agreement exists, then the conviction is local to the state where the violation took place. In some instances, failure to pay the fine may result in a suspension to drive in only the city or state to whom the fine is owed, and the motorist may continue to drive elsewhere in the same state.