Welcome to www.deferredadjudication.org

This site has been built to help fight the injustice of deferred adjudication law in Texas. After getting a deferred adjudication in Texas, it is currently not possible to expunge records even though a DA is not a conviction. During the 78th legislative session SB 1477 was passed, this bill promises to allow people in Texas to go on about their lives without the worry of discrimination for an offence that has been sealed. The goal of this web site it to spear head efforts to promote social justice and by helping to improve the privacy of those individuals who have been affected by DA.
We are not lawyers but we have been affected by DA and the experiences we have, we share with our readers freely because we want to better our lives by changing the injustice we face.

1. http://www.txstars.net/servlet/HSGServlet?page=Home
   State of Texas Assistance and Referral System (STARS)
2. http://www.dhs.state.tx.us/regions/index.html
   Click here to find the Local Texas Department of Human Services office in your area
3. http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/Programs/Programs.html
   Lists the Health and Human Services Programs that are offered.

Expungement VS Sealing your record which one is better.

By Valente G.
September 26, 2004

Sealing a record is often confused with expungement. The term sealing, when relating to deferred adjudication in Texas, applies to one instance of a deferred adjudicated charge that did not result in a conviction and for which the case was dismissed. Sealing a record means that you can have the record sealed from public inspection. In Texas you have to wait 10 years after your case was dismissed for Felonies and 5 years for Misdemeanors so that you can seal your record.

After you seal your record there will still a record that is available for private inspection by a state agency or an exempt entity. It does not mean that your record will remain sealed because your record is still available the Texas legislature. The danger is that during the course of a subsequent Texas session a bill can be authored to unseal everyone’s record.

Expungement is more than a sealing, an expungement means that your record is completely destroyed. Having no record would solve many of the problems that people have in finding employment and housing. Currently it is not possible to get an expungement for charges resulting in deferred adjudication.

I have established a personal goal to ask legislators that deferred adjudications be eligible for sealing immediately upon the date of completion of community supervision period, and that expungement be allowed 5 and 10 years after the date of dismissal for misdemeanors and felonies respectfully. Hopefully with enough involvement from affected individuals the law will change to allow for eventual expungement of a record that did not result in a conviction such as in the case of a deferred adjudication.

Jobs can be ours!

by Samuel
August 23, 2004

I know this article starts out contradicting our cause, but if we (referring to people such as you and I) had never been the victim of DA and had never had any infractions with the law, then we may possibly have some of the same opinions as our opponents. But this should provide enough detail as to how to approach a prospective employer and how to possibly offset an assumed conviction. Thanks.

Martin Holsome - Political Advisor, TRDA

Employers have become increasingly concerned about knowing if an applicant has a criminal record. More employers are conducting pre-employment background checks for criminal records. Employers have been the subject of large jury verdicts for negligent hiring in cases where they hire a person with a criminal record that harms others, and it could have been avoided by a criminal record check That is because employers have a legal duty to exercise due diligence in the hiring process, and that duty can be violated if an employer hires someone that they either knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care was dangerous or unit for a job. The concern from the employer's point of view is that a person with a criminal past may have a propensity to re-offend in the future.

On the other hand, society also has a vested interest in helping people with a past criminal record obtain and maintain employment. It is difficult for an ex-offender to become a law abiding, tax-paying citizen without a job. Unless society wants to continue to spend its tax dollars on building more and more jails and prisons, ex-offenders need the opportunity to rejoin the workforce.

For an ex-offender, a job search can become a frustrating Catch-22.
Nearly every employment application will ask in some fashion if a person has a criminal record. If a person lies, then they are always at risk of being terminated upon such a criminal record being discovered.
If a person is honest and admits the past misconduct, there is a risk of not getting the job.

There is no perfect answer. A person with a criminal record is going to face greater challenges in getting employment. There are certain jobs where an employer will justifiably not hire an ex-offender. However, challenging is not the same as impossible. The key is the right attitude and getting and keeping that first job, so that has time goes by, a person has developed a successful job history that outweighs past problems.

Here are six approaches a person with a past criminal record can take:

One: Understand your rights:
A person who has a criminal record and is looking for employment must understand their rights. There are instances where an applicant can legally and ethically answer NO on a question about a past offense.

This may occur in some of the following situations:
In many states, there is no obligation to report arrests not resulting in a conviction or that are not currently pending.
There are limitations on reporting pre-trial adjudications where the conduct by statute is not considered a criminal offense. Some states have pre-trial diversion or delayed entry of judgment).
There may be restrictions on minor drug offenses. In California for example, an employer may not ask about a minor marijuana offence for personal use older then two years.
Some states have procedures to judicially "erase" a criminal offense.
For example, in California, if the matter was a misdemeanor, and a person has gone back to court and received a certificate of rehabilitation under Penal Code 1203.4 that is not reportable.
Also keep in mind that most employment applications also contain language that the conviction of a crime will not automatically result in a denial of employment. Automatic disqualification could be a violation of state and federal discrimination laws. However, an employer may deny employment if the employer can establish a business-related reason for the refusal to hire.

Two: See an attorney to explore if you are eligible to get your conviction sealed, expunged, or legally minimized and to make sure you understand your rights.

This is critical. Ask an attorney if the criminal record can be expunged or set aside by going back to court, or whether it is the type of offense that an employer may legally ask about or consider. Each state has different rules, but in all stat, there is a mechanism for going back to court to try to seal or expunge certain offenses. Make sure you have explored your options. The attorney who represented you, or the local Public Defender or Probation Office should be able to assist.

Three: Seek professional assistance.
There are also organizations that assist past offenders. Some of these organizations have relationships with employers who are willing to give an ex-offender a chance. In addition, these organizations can help a person prepare a resume and practice interview techniques that deals honestly with the past offense, but helps a job applicant put their best foot forward by explaining why they can perform the job and why the employer should hire them. Various re-entry or training program will help ex-offenders develop new skills, or teach job search techniques.

Four: Honesty is the best policy.
In applying for a job, honestly is always the best policy. A criminal matter honestly explained during an interview may have much less negative impact than hiding it and having an employer discover it later. If an employer discovers an applicant was dishonest, the denial of a job could be based upon a lack of honesty, regardless of the nature of the offense. However, a person who has made a mistake and is now motivated to do well at a job may be of great interest to some employers.

Five: Start to rebuild your resume one step at a time, even if it is not the "perfect" job.
All employers know that the best indicator of future job performance is past job performance. If a person with a criminal record can obtain whatever job they can, hold that job and do well, the next job become much easier. It is the building block approach--one block at a time.
It is critical to seek to rebuild your resume by finding any employment you can to rebuild your resume. You should first seek employment with people you know. Ask everyone that likes you if they know someone who might be willing to hire you. Yes, mention your conviction, but stress your strengths and how much you learned from your past. Someone who knows you personally is more likely than a stranger to give you a chance.

If that does not work, then consider starting at the bottom. A few months of good work in an entry-level position can yield a good reference, which can start your career back upward.
According to career coach Marty Nemko, an entry level-job can be a launch pad and a foot in the door. Do a great job, build up
relationships with higher ups, express interest in moving up and before
long, you many find your self promoted. And if you take an entry-level job in order to rebuild your resume, be sure its one in which people with the power to promote you can observe the quality of your work.

Avoid taking a job off-site or in a remote location. If you enjoy working for the organization ask questions and let them know you are interested in moving up. There are certain industries that are in real need of workers. A fast food job, for example, may not be the job you want, but it is an example of a job that is widely available and allows a person to rebuild their credentials and show what they can do.

Eventually, what a new employer sees is a person with great recommendations and an excellent job history. As the criminal conviction gets older, and the job history become stronger, a person who has made a mistake the past will eventually find that the criminal record is less of an issue. It cannot be stressed enough that the best was to get a great job in the future is to get any job you can right now, and perform well.

Six: Take the long-term view.
This is the most difficult advice to follow. An ex-offender is anxious to get back into the workforce to start making a living. They may also be anxious to have their old life back. Yet, the decks are stacked against a person with a criminal record. The jobs that are available may not be the ones that you want. You may be qualified for something a great deal better. Doors may slam in your face, and you may very well be subject to unfair assumptions. The frustration level could easily build with each disappointment encountered.
What it comes down to is that an ex-offender needs to take the long view and have the faith and patience that the criminal matter will eventually be put behind them. As frustrating as it is, the basic rule still applies a person must rebuild their resume over time. And as time goes by, the criminal offense becomes less of a factor in a person’s life. But it is going to take time.

Look at it this way, even if it takes five years to rebuild your resume and get the job you want, five years will still go by. Five year later, what would you rather have a new life with a good job or still be living in frustration because you couldn’t get what you wanted right away.

Three case studies:
Case Study One: A schoolteacher was convicted of a misdemeanor offense that disqualified her from teaching. The person had dedicated their life to teaching, and suddenly it was no longer an option. She was very depressed and upset that she could no longer do what she loved and knew how to do so well. In order to qualify for a work-furlough program, she obtained a job with a friend in a retail store. It turned out that she had a talent for the new job, and became very successful and happy with it and found a new and satisfying career.

Case Study 2: A medical professional committed an offense that disqualified him from practicing his profession. He could not imagine not being employed in medicine. That had been the most important aspect of his life and defined who he was. It took a longer period of adjustment and he was very depressed and unhappy. He spent a great deal of time being upset about how unfair it was that he could not do what he could best. Out of necessity, he found job in construction. It turn out that he had a talent for this temporary job. He loved the hours and the freedom it gave him. He also realized that the pressures he had put himself under were the root cause of the criminal conduct. A few years later when he would have been eligible to attempt to regain his license, he had decided he enjoyed his new life, and did not want to go back.

Case Study 3: A young woman got involved in the wrong crowd at an early age. She was convicted of drug offenses and spent time in prison. In prison she obtained her GED. Upon release, she got a job in a fast food place. It was not the best job, but she worked hard and made herself the best worker in the place. She was always on time, cared about her job, respected her co-workers and supervisors and showed a real interest in succeeding. Since employers need that kind of worker, she was eventually promoted to the management trainee program. She then turned for assistance to a program that helped women get jobs, and was able to find a well paying administrative job in a growing firm. It took time, but she did everything right.

These case studies have one critical element in common. These individuals could not have been more depressed and frustrated at their situation. But by being patient, taking the long view and believing things could get better, eventually their lives went in new and better directions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NOTE: This article is provided as a public service for job seekers who must overcome the burden of a past criminal matter to obtain a job.
The author, who is president of an employment screening company, is unable to give job seekers individual advice on job seeking or on any legal matter.
If you have a question about your situation, you are advised to contact a knowledgeable professional. Your local bar association can give you the names of attorneys who may help, and may in fact have a low-cost introductory visit program available. Look in your local Yellow pages under Attorneys for the phone number of the local bar association or
lawyer referral program. Job placement professionals can also be of assistance. Many local government and states also offer re-entry and job training programs.

The deal when you accept Deferred Adjudication?

by Samuel
August 7, 2004

I am fortunate to have access to law enforcement procedures and other
government entities so that I may obtain information and in turn relay
it to the members of this organization. Lately, I’ve had a lot of time
on my hands and have had the opportunity to research all sorts of
material pertaining to this topic. I found numerous loopholes in what
the justice system tries to use against recipients of deferred
adjudication and other similar dispositions. Everyone that has been
paying attention should already know 42.12 by heart. They should know
SB1477 and SB1577 as well. This is where the “Nightmare on Capitol
Street” begins. Law is written in two forms, general and specific.
Specific interpretation supersedes the general rendition. However, most
arrests are by general circumstances. The most unfortunate detail
prescribed with deferred adjudication or pretrial diversion is that
neither is eligible to be expunged. Their reasoning for this crosshatch
of definitions are so that the case can be disposed of quickly and so
that the disposition will not reflect a conviction thus not making it
eligible for such course of legal action. The technicality of this is
true. But remember most convictions are not won through technicalities.
They are sought by the application of definitions. So technically, you
are only convicted by definition. However, there is a loophole in the
contents of the law that could possibly help apprehend the availability
of the word “conviction”.

I have compiled various researches and found one application that is
substantial in Texas Law. According to Rules of Appellate Procedure,
rule 21.3 (a) – (h), given there are no bizarre circumstances, there
may be a way to have your case retried with a different approach. In
accordance to 21.3 – (h) when a verdict is found contrary to the law
and the evidence, a motion for a new trial may be filed. If you plead
guilty to a charge for the sole purpose of receiving a more lenient
sentence or was under the delusive visualization that you would have no
conviction or criminal record, then the verdict was reached coercively.
This presents a problem according to this section of Rules of Appellate
Procedure. To present an optional disposition that allows a person to
feel that they are being relieved of a harsher sentence is a form of
bribery.

So I encourage everyone that is involved in this community to reexamine
their case and evaluate whether an expungement versus an appeal would
be suitable for their application. Needless to say, an appeal would be
more costly. But it may give your defense counsel a chance to introduce
to the court where there was a direct violation of your rights and how
the court should see fit to dismiss your case due to this act of
negligence. The only way to receive this form of sentencing is by
entering a plea of guilt. So by not offering the same optional sentence
without having to plea guilty is placing the defendant in such a
position that they feel fortunate to receive this disposition. They
feel if they contest the case that the terms of the sentence will be
more severe. Sounds like a valid case to me.

For those not familiar with misdemeanor cases, when it is said: “accept
in a misdemeanor case in which the maximum possible punishment is a
fine” This, means anything above or greater than a class C which is
equivalent to a parking citation or speeding ticket.

See what you can make of it. Thanks, Samuel

The Plea

Film Review
By Marty WebMaster www.wipetheslateclean.com

Everyone needs to buy three copies of the film, one for themselves and one to send to their state representative and one to their state senator.

This film will be available to watch online next week. It answers a lot of questions and gives me hope. Rob, I remember when that Houston prosecuting attorney stood up in the house committee and said that we would tell them that defendants are coerced into pleading guilty weather they are or not. He then said that this simply does not happen. Well watch the film.

The film also points out that coercion for probation pleas has been considered by the Supreme Court to be voluntary if it is made to avoid a much harsher sentence. What it does not talk about is that in Texas, for Deferred Adjudication, the coercion is made on false promise of not being considered convicted. This film does not talk about deferred adjudication, but the coercion involved in forcing people to plea bargain.

Sincerely,
Marty WebMaster www.wipetheslateclean.com
For more info click here.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/view/
Buy The Video Here
http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=1817584

Finally News Organizations are reporting the truth about background checks.

By Valente G.
May 20, 2004

A fellow reader sent me an email regarding a story that NPR aired Thursday 20th of May 2004, I took the time to listen to it, and I find that the description of the problems convicted people face in the state of New York are the same problems we face here in the great State of Texas with deferred adjudication. Because our problems are not unique to our group it gives me hope of a possibility that all groups affected by these issues will at some point join together and really challenge the absurd background check which hunt.

Click here to read my Editorial on this subject.

Click here to listen to the Audio

Paxel talks at Flowermound Council meeting.

By Paxel
May 6, 2004

Political season in Flower Mound is often contentious, but this year it is especially at a fever pitch. And it centers around deferred adjudication. Stephani Spruill, currently Mayor Pro Tem for the Town, has thrown her hat in the Mayoral race. Recently, someone uncovered the fact that Ms. Spruill had a deferred adjudication sentence in 1988.

The Council chamber was a full house when I arrived last Monday night. The list of those wanting to speak was long. I had called Ms. Spruill that day and asked her permission to refer to her in a presentation I wanted to make regarding DA. I told her I was a member of TRDA. She gladly welcomed the idea of someone speaking to the problem she was having. A few newspapers had even made the statement "she was convicted of a felony." I was as upset as she was about that. I had an eight page presentation explaining what DA is, what the reality of it is, and the effort currently underway by TRDA to address the problem. Unfortunately, just as the meeting began, the announcement was made by Council member, Cindy Travis, that the three minute limit on citizen participation would be absolutely adhered to. Out came my pen and I began to slice and dice.

I sat through a parade of citizens addressing Ms. Spruill with a great deal of anger. The comments were very personal. I couldn't do anything about their anger, but I could tell them she has "not been convicted of anything." Audience participants held up a copy of her arrest report whenever she tried to defend herself. They dragged in the apartment complex manager who made the original complaint against Ms. Spruill, and she basically testified. It felt like a courtroom, and that we were watching a trial. It was a blatant example of the confusion regarding DA and the misrepresentation of the deferred adjudication law.

I became an absolute believer in the fight for total expunction. The ONLY way to protect yourself from what just happened to Ms. Spruill, is to join the fight for expunction with TRDA. Only then will you be assured of being able to move on with your life.

Paxel

Flower Mound Mayor Pro Tem Not Hiding Her 16 Year-Old"deferred adjudication".

April 27, 2004
By Valente G.

16 years ago Stephani Spruill went to court. The judge accepted a plea bargain in return for not convicting her because a deferred adjudication under Texas law is not to be considered a conviction.

As a result of a rigorous probation system the majority of people who undergo deferred adjudication do not re-offend. Deferred adjudication has provided courts with alternative sentencing options for over 30 years. Because not all people who go to court are guilty and some just do not have the money to fight the charges, many are convinced to accept a plea-bargain rather than loosing and having a conviction. Ms. Spruill, who was 23 at the time of her deferred adjudication, now says: “looking back, I was very young and really didn't want a confrontation." This sounds right, a youth should not have his/her future prospects destroyed for one mistake. The way deferred adjudication is explained to a person who has been arrested sounds like a good deal, at least on the surface. Since deferred adjudication is explained by the courts and defense attorneys as not resulting in a final conviction, it is easy to convince defendants to accept it. Spruill says , "I was on my own and didn't have any means to fight anybody," As I have talked to people I have heard that prosecutors generally pressure defendants not to go against a plea-bargain because it will be much worse for the defendant if they take a case to trial. The District Attorney will usually entice individuals with promises like “,you will not have a conviction,” In listening to audio from the 78th legislative session during the Law Enforcement Committee’s review of HB 181 , a person giving testimony named Jack Moore urged a speaker who said to the effect that unethical things like that do not happen in Texas court rooms to look him in the eye and to tell him that things like this do not happen. The previous speaker had no comment!

Statistics have shown that a person with deferred adjudication is not a habitual offender and should not be labeled as such. The term “habitual offender” is an unfair description does not fairly apply to those given a deferred adjudication since it is usually given to young adults as a way for judges to correct errant behavior without condemning an otherwise law-abiding youth with a conviction. Those individuals who who are true habitual offenders are not given the benefit of a deferred adjudication from a criminal court judge.

In offices which are filled by the process of electoral voting , political adversaries are often willing to distort what a deferred adjudication is in order to gain a political edge and can often exploit a deferred adjudication for purely political reasons to distract attention away from the real issues or to help their performance in a race. During the 2000 presidential race Bush’s opponents attempted to derail his election prospects by opening a DWI over 30 years old. Did that record have any bearing on who Bush is today,? Probably not, since he currently does not drink and has said so many times. That is why a 16 year old deferred adjudication, which is not even a conviction in the first place, is ridiculously silly and is only introduced by a political opponent for one of the following reasons:
(1) It is vicious, mean spirited act designed to destroy the good and earned reputation of a current office holder, or
(2) The political opponent wants to talk about someone’s long departed past because they do not want to focus on what REALLY matters to the voters – the issues which affect their day-to-day lives!

The person who took deferred adjudication probably learned a very good lesson and as a result chose to live a law-abiding life as a result of it. Obviously there is nothing in Texas law that states that a person with a deferred adjudication cannot hold public office, although Spruill’s opponent may certainly be wishing there was. I wonder what Jody Smith is thinking about the current situation? I wonder if Jody Smith knows the individual or individual(s) who obtained information about Stephani Spruill’s long ago past? How ethical is it to pry into someone’s past without that person’s knowledge? If Jody Smith is elected, would bringing up someone’s past mistakes in a vengeful manner become her modus operandi? Every time someone questioned Jody Smith’s way of doing things….will they be subjected to a witch hunt? These are questions that the voters in Flower Mound need to be asking themselves!

Supposedly according to nbc5i.com “Spruill's challenger, Jody Smith, said she was dumbfounded to learn about Spruill's criminal past. I wonder if Jody Smith has ever made an error in judgment….I wonder if Jody Smith has ever made a mistake that she truly regrets making? Voters often complain about politicians not being able to “identify with them”, not listening to them, not being able to understand their problems. But would a voter trust someone who does not have problems like they do, who did not make a mistake in his/her life, and then worked hard to overcome that mistake and work even harder to once again earn the trust of people in her community?

So does Jody Smith’s past matter, is it important, what do we know about Jody Smith? Is Jody who we think she is? Or is she a cloned dirty laundry politician? It was Jody Smith attacking Mrs.’ Spruill saying she is "the puppet of a political boss." If Jody can call her political rivals puppets, how will she treat her rivals and those who do not agree with her once she is entrusted with the Mayors seat? Has this story of Spruill’s past come out because Jody is trying to protect the voters from electing a puppet of “a political boss” or is it because she will stop at nothing to win this election even to the extent of distracting voters from the issues and instead going after dirty laundry?. Not only that but she goes on by saying "One of the platforms I'm running on is bringing honor and integrity back to town hall, and bringing dignity back to it," Smith said. "This leaves me questioning what other issues we may not even know about."
The real issues are, who will do the will of the people, Spruill or Smith? How much access to your elected officials will you have if you elect the wrong person?

Readers I want you to understand something here. Many people who insult and backstab others show obvious disdain for those they do not agree with; they express fake concern when they see anguish in others, they live to rule others, and they do not like to be humbled, since they are always right. In their opinion, there is no need to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. Readers should ask if what I am writing has any truth, do I have a point. Is finger pointing and character assassination something that a normal person does, or is it something that a megalomaniac does.

Mrs. Spruill has a historical track record of being there for the citizens of Flower Mound when it counted most – tackling tough issues. Perhaps some of the decisions that were made were not to everyone’s liking; they seldom are in a democratic environment. But the fact is, Mrs. Spruill was there, every single day, making the tough decisions that had to be made. Please bear this is mind when you cast your vote. Let your conscience be your guide….make the right choice based on past, proven performance…and not from
a mistake that was made and overcome many years ago.

Link to the Calendar for the Flower Mound City council.

Click here for a map to the Flower Mound Town Council building.

Attorney General to decide if third parties can force us to waive our Nondisclosure privileges.
To look over Opinion Request RQ-0209-GA.

April 23, 2004
by Valente G.

Bell County Attorney basically asks if people with nondisclosure have the power to override a judicially ordered nondisclosure. Basically asks the question, does a person have the ability to allow others to view his or her criminal records for employment purposes, or is nondisclosure for criminal and law enforcement purposes only. He also asks what to tell the federal government when they ask if there is a record for a person. Whether to tell them “no record” or to reply back with “no disposable record”. Do you people see the difference?

I have been offered the opportunity to provide an opinion on this subject, and I have been contacted because I represent an interested party www.deferredadjudciation.org . I urge everyone with legal knowledge to participate by preparing an opinion to submit for this very important Attorney General Opinion. In reference to RQ-0209-GA. I am of the opinion that a person lacks power to countermand a judge's decision to issue a nondisclosure, and he also does not have the power to authorize the release of records to parties other than him or her self, this is what I will intend to present in my opinion because to do so would cause even more confusion. My conclusion will be that because a person lacks the authority to allow others to obtain said records that such information is not allowed to be disseminated to non-law enforcement agencies and such.

Will the Texas Legislature do anything about Deferred Adjudication during the next legislative session in 2005?

Not if you do not contact them to let them know deferred adjudication is still broken!!!

Click here to (Listen to Audio)

April 4, 2004

The Texas state legislative session starts in January 2005. For those of you who do not know it, the Texas legislature meets only ONCE every two years. What this means is that unless we are successful in getting better, more comprehensive and meaningful criminal records expunction laws passed in 2005, then it will be 2007 before we get another chance to do so! We absolutely MUST avail ourselves of this precious opportunity to pass better laws in 2005. To have to wait again until 2007 is absolutely
unacceptable to us!!!

At the present time, to my knowledge, absolutely none of the elected representatives in the state of Texas has contacted our web site/organization to try to reach out to us and work with us in drafting better laws in 2005 This is NOT a good sign for our chances in 2005. I truly think that many, if not all, of the elected reps have the idea in their heads that the DA problem was *fixed* when the Texas state legislature passed Senate Bill 1477 into law in 2003. For those of you who do not know, Senate Bill 1477 was a very diluted and watered down version of the bill that we wanted to see get passed, which was House Bill 181, which was authored by state representative Jessica Farrar (Houston Democrat). It is our expressed, and collective opinion that SB 1477 is too restrictive in who it helps and how it helps them. We have got to immediately start contacting our state reps and let them know that we want better and more comprehensive expunction laws passed in 2005, better than SB 1477 in terms of expunction benefits and better in terms of who is actually eligible to obtain expunction. We must let them know that WE are placing expectations upon THEM to take action so that we will no longer be unfairly discriminated against in the workplace and elsewhere.

It is a now a highly known fact that the Republicans now control all the important offices, at every level (municipal, county, and state) in the state of Texas. During the previous legislative session in 2005, every piece of deferred adjudication related legislation was drafted by the Democrats; and all of their proposed legislation was defeated by the Republicans...except the diluted and watered down bill, SB 1477. More than likely, even if we could find a Democrat to once again draft and carry an expunction bill for us again, more than likely the Republicans would defeat that bill once again. This is truly sad...because this is most assuredly NOT a partisan issue; both Democrats and Republicans have been horribly affected by the debilitating effects of DA. Therefore, what we need to do is for *** EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US *** to individually contact the following Republican state representatives and let them know that the Deferred Adjudication problem did ***NOT*** get fixed by the passage into law of SB 1477 and that WE do expect THEM to pass REAL expunction relief law in 2005. These are the following Republicans which you need to contact....and why they in particular should be contacted.

(1) Representative Suzanna Hupp

District Office
P. O. Box 751
Lampasas, TX 76550
(512) 556-8954

She should be contacted because I feel that our best chances of getting good laws passed lie with her. She actually supports the notion of individual privacy rights and even co-sponsored HB 181 with Democrat
Jessica Farrar in 2003.

(2) Representative Joe Driver

District Office
201 South Glenbrook Dr.
Garland, TX 75040
(972) 276-1556

He should be contacted because he was the Chairman of the House Law Enforcement Committee in the last legislative session in 2003. It was in Joe Driver's committee where our bill that we wanted to get passed, House Bill 181, died. We have sources who told us that Mr. Driver refused to let our bill come out of his committee so that it could be voted on by the entire Texas House of Representatives and then sent to the Governor for his signature to be passed into law. We must let Mr. Driver
know that we expect him and his fellow lawmakers to allow passage of bills into law which were very similar in style and content to the bill we wanted to see get passed, HB 181. He is very key to our chances!

(3) Representative William Hartnett

District Office
9713 N. Central Expwy.
Dallas, TX 75231
(214) 891-1776
(214) 891-1693 Fax

Mr. Hartnett is the Chairman of Jurisprudence in the house and will therefore be very crucial to our chances of winning better laws.

Some Guidelines to go by when contacting these people.

Be nice to these people. Remember, above all, these are people who can actually "make or break" us as far as winning better laws for our cause.
However, you must be firm in the expectations that we wish to set upon these folks. When contacting them, it is vitally important to put the idea in their minds that SB 1477, passed during the last session, did not go far enough in helping the majority of people with DA on their records. Tell them that SB 1477 is too restrictive in who it helps and how it helps them.
Let them know that SB 1477 calls for having to go in front of a judge to get a final ruling before you are allowed an "order of non-disclosure" from the judge. Had HB 181 passed into law, then your records would have been automatically expunged after a reasonable amount of time had passed. Tell them that (HB 181) is what we want to see get passed into law. When contacting these elected reps, it is worth bearing something else in mind:

Most of you will not actually be living in the districts that these elected representatives are representing. You will need to do two very important things. (1) Write a very detailed letter describing who you are and what your expectations are as far as getting new and better laws passed. Send this letter to them through the US Postal System. Do NOT count on e-mail.
Most of the time, these people receive tons of e-mail and do not have the time or staff to answer it all. However, they DO tend to read letters that have been sent to them via the US Postal system. I advise you to get their attention even more by sending your letter as a "registered" letter. It will cost a little bit more...but it will definitely get their attention. Finally, in about 2 weeks after mailing this letter to them, follow up with a telephone call. Be courteous, but insist on being able to talk with the elected rep in person. This will get the message to them that we are NOT going to go away until this problem gets fixed....and gets fixed RIGHT! When you are talking with them, just remind them that you sent them a letter and that you are counting on them to draft legislation similar in style and content of our earlier bill, House Bill 181. Finally, thank them for their time and remind them that you will be monitoring the progress of their work on this issue and that we plan to contact ALL of our elected reps on this matter. One last thing....all of these efforts will be for nothing if they are not sustained and followed up on. What this means is that we have to stay right on top of the situation. What this means is that WE should be calling their office once every two weeks just to check back in with them and let them know we are watching. If enough people are doing this....don't you think that they will soon get the message and realize that this problem is NOT going to go away until it is dealt with once and for all? Okay folks....there it all is. The rest is up to you!

To better help give us all a good idea as to who is participating in this and also to improve the motivations and morale of all of us who are engaged in this struggle, we are asking that you all post your experiences, thoughts, feelings, and concerns in our Discussion Forums so that we can all see what everybody else is doing. This will serve to keep morale up and it will also serve to remind all of our web site visitors that we ARE SERIOUS about winning *** REAL *** expunction relief law in 2005.

Let's all work together and do this. Together, lets end all of this deferred adjudication madness in 2005!

Previous DA Stories!

News Stories from news organizations.

Flower Mound City Council Member has a Deferred Adjudication from 1988 and it is still on her record.
April 24, 2004
by By KEVIN KRAUSE / The Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/tarrant/stories/042404dnmetdeferred.31b93.html
If they take the link off click here

Firefighter is fired for having a deferred adjudication.
April 15, 2004
By Ted Streuli
http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?wcd=19580
If they take the link off click here

Three arrests, no convictions
March 7, 2004
By JOANN LIVINGSTON
http://www.waxahachiedailylight.com
If they take the link off click here

U.S. to Start Airline Background Checks
January 27, 2004
By LESLIE MILLER Associated Press Writer
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1152/1-27-2004/20040127104503_12.html