You can call it what you will, but it's still illegal

You may remember Ruben Trejo, he's the former HPD sergeant who collided with a school bus on his way to work -- with an alcohol concentration of .176. On Friday, Mr. Trejo pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, paid a $500 fine and was placed into the Harris County District Attorney Office's pretrial intervention program (DIVERT).

Trejo, who has retired from the department, was allowed to the Harris County District Attorney's pretrial intervention program in which defendants plead guilty to DWI, but the verdict is deferred for a year. If the defendant completes all the requirements in the program, there is no conviction but the initial arrest remains on record.

What's wrong with this picture, you ask?

When a defendant opts for deferred adjudication in a criminal case, she enters a plea of guilty before the court, the judge then states that he finds enough evidence to find her guilty but that he will withhold a finding of guilt for a period of time (the length of the probation). Once the defendant completes her probation the criminal case will be dismissed and she will be eligible to file a petition for nondisclosure.

The problem is that deferred adjudication is not available for anyone charged with driving while intoxicated in Texas - even though it is available to a person charged with murder. The Houston Chronicle article points out, in plain English, why the DIVERT program is illegal.

Calling it pretrial intervention doesn't change that fact. Once the defendant enters a plea of guilty on a DWI case, there is nothing the judge can do (legally) other than record it as a conviction and sentence accordingly. As soon as the judge states she is deferring a finding of guilt, we're talking about deferred adjudication.

Diverting from the law

According to the Houston Chronicle, the Harris County DA's DIVERT program is the greatest thing since sliced bread when it comes to dealing with DWI. The article points out that more than 3,000 people have signed up for the program and that 1,431 people have completed it. There have also been 413 people who have been unsuccessful.

Of course the DA's office thinks the program is working great -- that's over 3,000 DWI cases that they didn't have to worry about trying. That's over 3,000 DWI cases in which they have a signed confession from the defendant and a guilty plea before a judge. That's over 3,000 under court supervision because of an allegation that someone was intoxicated while driving. That's over 3,000 cases in which the prosecutor doesn't have to worry about the legality of a stop, of the administration of roadside coordination exercises or the results of a breath or blood test.

We have no way of knowing in how many of those cases there were questions about the stop, the arrest or the testing of the driver. We have no way of knowing how many folks threw up their hands and chose not to fight their case because of a promise their case would be dismissed.

There is one judge at the Criminal (In)justice Center who sees the problem with DIVERT and is unwilling to turn a blind eye.

Critics, including a Houston judge, say the program is illegal because it circumvents 1980s legislation that prohibits deferred adjudication for DWI defendants. Deferred adjudication is a form of probation that allows a defendant to maintain a clean record. 

"Of course it's illegal," said criminal court-at-law Judge Bill Harmon. "But nobody cares." 

Harmon has presided over criminal proceedings for 22 years as a state district judge and four years in the misdemeanor courts. 

"The No. 1 thing that the Code of Criminal Procedure says that you can't get deferred adjudication for is driving while intoxicated," he said. "And court-ordered supervision after a plea of guilty is deferred adjudication."

Judge Harmon is right. If DIVERT were a true pretrial diversion program there would be no guilty plea before the court. A true pretrial diversion plan is an agreement between the District Attorney and a defendant that the defendant will do certain things in exchange for his case being dismissed. If the defendant messes up, the deal is off and the case proceeds as normal - with the possibility that the defendant admitted guilt in his application for pretrial diversion.

In DIVERT, the defendant is taken before the judge and enters a plea of guilty to the charges. The court then resets the case for about a year in advance and the person goes on "probation." Should there be a problem, the person is brought back before the court and given the choice of 30 days in jail or withdrawing the plea and re-entering a plea for probation. That's the problem with entering that guilty plea.

As I've stated before, DIVERT is nothing but deferred adjudication by another name and an attempt by the judges and prosecutors in Harris County to get around the state's ban on deferred adjudication for driving while intoxicated.

Diverted from justice

While I was sitting in a courtroom at the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center the other morning I couldn't help but listen in on the proceedings at the bench.

It seems that a woman who was charged with driving while intoxicated chose to enter the DIVERT program. As part of her "probation" she had an ignition interlock device installed in her car. It appeared that there were a few incidents in which the device detected alcohol levels greater than .02 on her breath. Someone (the DA's office, the probation department, pretrial services?) wanted to terminate her participation in DIVERT.

The judge looked at the printouts and asked the woman a few questions before telling her attorney that he would allow her to withdraw her plea, enter a new plea and leave her on probation instead of sentencing her to 30 days in jail. The attorney asked the judge what he was supposed to do.

The attorney pointed out that the pretrial diversion agreement was between the defendant and the DA's office. The judge pointed out that she had entered a plea of guilty in exchange for 30 days in jail as part of her entranced into the program. Per the contract, the 30 days was probated.

The attorney said he didn't think the DIVERT program was even legal.

The judge told the attorney that he had raised concerns about the legality of the program on prior occasions and that he made no attempt to hide his concern about defendants entering pleas of guilty as part of the program.

Keep in mind that these were just allegations that she had consumed alcohol while on probation. There was nobody present to testify that the device was working properly on the days in question. There were no maintenance or calibration records. There was no expert to testify that the interlock device was reliable. There was no one to testify as how the little box even works. How does it clean itself after a blow? What is the scientific basis of the box? How does it calculate an alcohol concentration?

It's a little box with a tube.

But the defendant was boxed in. She had already plead guilty. She was, to put it bluntly, screwed.

I have written many times about my concerns with the DIVERT program - and those concerns have to do with the practice of the defendant entering a guilty plea before the court. As I have stated before, DIVERT is not a pretrial diversion, or intervention, program; DIVERT is deferred adjudication for first-time DWI offenders. The program is not legal and it is questionable whether anyone who participates will be able to expunge the arrest from their records.

One lump or two?

Oh, the hypocrisy of those limited government folks never ceases to amaze. As Grits for Breakfast reports, Teabaggers in Smith County (that would be northeast Texas, for those of y'all not in the know), have come out in favor of (yet another) referendum to build a new jail.

Nevermind the fact that voters in Smith County (hardly a liberal stronghold) have said "thanks, but no thanks" on four previous occasions. Nevermind the debt the construction project would impose on county coffers.  Nevermind the fact that it costs Smith County less to house a few inmates in other counties than it would to pay for a new jail. Nevermind that the majority of folks being housed in jails across this state are being held for nonviolent crimes.

In other words, nevermind the fact that the Teabaggers proclaim themselves to be champions of limited government. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about lobbying for restrictions to be placed on the constitutional rights of those accused of criminal activity. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about creating new crimes or harsher penalties because of one bad incident that occurred. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about allowing the police to intrude more and more into the lives of ordinary citizens -- whether it be through "back-dooring" our e-mail or cell phone communications or fondling people boarding planes.

You want to reduce the cost of incarcerating our fellow citizens? How about personal bonds for folks charged with minor nonviolent offenses who have no prior criminal record? How about allowing police officers to issue tickets for possession of trace amounts of marijuana instead of hauling someone off to jail? How about more pretrial diversion programs for folks without criminal records? How about reducing bonds so that defendants don't have to sit around in jail until their cases are disposed of?

The problem with those ideas, though, is that they're logical.