OSPA Offers Practically Free Traffic-Stop Training for Rural Law Enforcement
Assistant State Prosecuting Attorney John R. Messinger will conduct a 4-hour presentation covering 4th Amendment issues with a focus on traffic stops. The presentation is accompanied by a paper (distributed in advance) and includes:
∙ Historical perspective
∙ In-depth coverage of controlling law
∙ Discussion of recent cases and pending issues
∙ A quiz!
This service is for small or rural counties that do not have the resources to send officers for training. Credit can be earned with a department’s approval.
Call ((512) 463-1660) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org) John to schedule a training day for this August (August will be the only time the service is offered).
"Can a conviction for violating a civil commitment order be upheld when the underlying commitment order has been reversed on appeal?"
In January of 2009, a jury declared Bohannan a sexually violent predator subject to civil commitment for outpatient treatment and supervision under Chapter 841 of the Health and Safety Code. In October of 2012, he was indicted for multiple violations of that commitment alleged to have occurred between February, 2009, and April, 2011. In July of 2010, in the midst of the period covered by the allegations, the judgment of civil commitment was reversed. The State challenged this reversal, but it was ultimately affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court in August of 2012. The mandate did not issue until January, 2013.
Trial commenced shortly after the mandate issued. Bohannan filed a motion to quash, arguing that the State could not base prosecution on a civil commitment that was ultimately held invalid. That was denied, and Bohannan was convicted. The court of appeals ruled the complaint was not preserved. It noted, however, that a commitment order is effective immediately upon entry and that its reversal was not effective until the mandate issued. Thus, Bohannan violated an order that was in effect at the time.
In a pro se petition, Bohannan challenged the court of appeals's preservation ruling and its reliance on Ex parte Jimenez, 361 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012), in which the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a felon-in-possession conviction is not invalidated by the subsequent vacation of the underlying felony conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition but granted review on its own motion.