Blog

TRIAL OBJECTIONS MUST BE CLEAR AND PRECISE

Aug 15 2009
Posted By:
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas Finds Lawyer’s Careful and Repeated Objections did not Preserve Error

By:Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Criminal trials are governed by strict rules of evidence and procedures. It is the duty of a defense attorney to not only know but understand these rules and procedures precisely. We have written several times in the past about the harm caused by a defense attorney’s inadvertent failure to make specific, timely and properly lodged objections during the course of a criminal trial.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently delivered that same unreasonable message once again and in no uncertain terms.

The case involved Luis Pena who, in 1998, was charged with possession of marijuana seized during a traffic stop. He was put on trial in 2003. His attorney had learned that the evidence in the case had been destroyed in 2000. The attorney also learned through a thorough investigation that all of the records and documents associated with the lab report of the Texas Department of Public Safety concerning the marijuana had been lost. So prior to trial the attorney diligently filed a motion for an independent lab analysis of the seized marijuana and moved to suppress the DPS lab results. These motions were denied by the trial court.

Not to be deterred, Pena’s attorney lodged general evidence-custody objections based on the laws of Texas, the Texas Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The trial judge denied these objections, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents that require a state criminal defendant to not only show that the lost or destroyed evidence was both material and favorable to his defense but that the state act in bad faith when it lost or destroyed the evidence.

During Pena’s trial, the prosecution called a DPS chemist to testify about the lab test results. Pena’s attorney not only properly objected but requested that he be allowed to question the chemist outside of the jury’s presence to assess his qualifications and to determine the admissibility of the test results. The trial judge granted the attorney’s request, and after both sides had an opportunity to question the chemist about the destruction of the evidence, the judge personally questioned the chemist to determine if DPS had acted in bad faith when it destroyed the evidence. The judge concluded the law enforcement agency had not only acted in bad faith but that the destroyed evidence was not favorable to Pena.

At this procedural juncture, and for the first time, Pena’s attorney explicitly raised an objection that the destruction of the evidence violated the “due course of law” provisions under the Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 19. Regrettably, however, the attorney did not base that objection specifically on the legal theory that the “due course of law” provisions of the Texas Constitution provides greater protections than the “due process of law” provisions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The trial judge overruled the attorney’s objection. Pena was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.Any reasonable review of this lawyer’s diligent effort to object to this evidence would suggest the defense lawyer made a thorough and complete objection that would preserve this matter for appeal.So, at least, one would think.

On appeal the Waco Court of Appeals in 2005 decided sus sponte to address the novel issue of whether the “due course of law” provision of the Texas Constitution provides greater protection than the “due process of law” protections provided by the U.S. Constitution. After conducting a detailed analysis of this issue, the appeals court ruled the “due course of law” provisions of the Texas Constitution in fact provide greater protections than the “due process of law” provisions of the U.S. Constitution, even though there was no evidence in the record that DPS had acted in bad faith when it destroyed the evidence. The appeals court reversed and remanded Pena’s case for a new trial.

This set off a series of appeals and remands in the case between the Court of Criminal Appeals and the appeals courts as to whether the latter court had the authority on its own to address the “due course of law/due process of law” issue without a proper objection having been made at the trial level. Finally, on April 8, 2009, the Court of Criminal Appeals resolved the legal conflict by denying rehearing on the case. The CCA cited Rule 33.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which governs preservation of errors for appeal and which, in part, states:

“As a perquisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that: (1) the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion: (A) stated that grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context …”

This rule imposes a strict responsibility on a criminal defense attorney to clearly convey to the trial judge the objection, including the precise and proper legal basis for the objection and its underlying rationale. As we have pointed out in previous articles, the issue of whether an objection has been properly preserved for appellate review depends upon whether the objection presented on appeal tracks identically with the objection made before the trial court. Unfortunately, there’s no room for deviation between the two objections.

The record in the Pena case revealed that his attorney inadvertently failed to preserve the “due course of law/due process of law” issue for appeal. The CCA noted that while the attorney eventually invoked the Texas due course of law provision, he failed to argue that it provided greater protection than the federal “due process of law” provision. The CCA added:

“Indeed, based on Pena’s initial objection under the Fourteenth Amendment, the record shows that the judge and the State understood Pena’s complaint was under only the well established federal standard concerning lost or destroyed evidence. Pena never disabused the judge of this notion even, when, in reurging his prior objections to ‘protect the appellate record,’

he first cited to Article I, Section 19. Pena was obligated to put the trial judge on notice of the specific legal theory that he intended to advocate because: the federal constitutional standard was clearly established; the trial judge and the State unmistakably relied solely on the federal standard; and there is no independent interpretation on the subject of lost or destroyed evidence under the Texas Constitution’s due course of law provision. We hold that, by failing to distinguish the rights and protections afforded under the Texas due course of law provision from those provided under the Fourteenth Amendment before the trial judge in this context, Pena failed to preserve his complaint that the due course of law provides greater protection for appellate review.”

In defense of Pena’s attorney, it may well be that he did not want to raise the distinction between the state and federal constitutional provisions. He may have deliberately framed in objection under the Texas due course of law provision in general terms to avoid arguing it provided greater protection than the federal due process provision. After all, it was the Waco Court of Appeals that decided on its own to raise and address this constitutional issue.

Be that as it may, the CCA decided to lay the blame as the doorstep of Pena’s attorney—quite unfairly we believe. This ruling begs that we once again point out the need for criminal defense attorneys to make timely and clear objections and be prepared to inform the trial judge of the precise application of the law associated with the objection. An attorney must be prepared during the trial at any given moment to make a clear objection and precisely argue the law supporting that objection.

Both state and federal appellate courts have zero tolerance for the failure to follow these procedures for lodging proper objections. A criminal defense attorney must always remember in the heat of courtroom battles to always stay focused on their objection and the legal basis for it. Inadvertence, mistake, or forgetfulness will not cut it. The Pena case is another in a long line of cases that reinforces this courtroom reality.

SOURCE:
Pena v. State, 2009 Tex.Crim.App. LEXIS 511 (Tex.Crim.App. April 8, 2009), rehearing denied, In re Pena, 2009 Tex.Crim.App. LEXIS 822 (Tex.Crim.App. June 24, 2009)

By:Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

JOSE LUIS PENA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
NO. PD-1411-07
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 511
April 8, 2009, Delivered
NOTICE: PUBLISH
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Rehearing denied by In re Pena, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 822 (Tex. Crim. App., June 24, 2009)
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]
ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS LEON COUNTY.
Pena v. State, 226 S.W.3d 634, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 3417 (Tex. App. Waco, 2007)
JUDGES: KEASLER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which KELLER, P.J., MEYERS, WOMACK, and HERVEY, JJ., joined. HOLCOMB, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which PRICE and JOHNSON, JJ., joined and in which COCHRAN, J., joined with respect to Part 1.
OPINION BY: KEASLER

OPINION
Jose Luis Pena objected to the admission of lab test results because the State destroyed the substance tested before trial. He objected under the Texas Constitution’s due course of law provision but failed to argue, before the trial judge, that it is more protective than the federal Due Process Clause. The lower court held that Pena’s Texas constitutional claim was preserved and reversed on that ground. 1 We hold that it was not and reverse the court’s judgmen
1Pena v. State (Pena III), 226 S.W.3d 634, 637, 656 (Tex. App.–Waco 2007).
Background

Pena was charged with possession of marijuana that was seized during a traffic stop in 1998. Before trial in 2003, Pena sought an independent lab analysis of the substance. He learned that it had been destroyed in 2000. He also learned that, with the exception of the Department of Public Safety’s lab report,[*2] which recorded that the substance tested was marijuana, all of the records documenting the testing were lost. Before trial, Pena moved to suppress the lab test results under Section 481.160 of the Texas Health and Safety Code and Article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Pena also lodged broad constitutional objections and custody objections “under the laws of the State of Texas and [the] Constitution of the United States and the State of Texas . . . .” Framing the issue before him in accordance with the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. Youngblood, 2 the trial judge responded:

And I would note that under case law, as I understand it, it is the burden of proof of the defendant to prove that the destruction of the evidence was done willfully and that – – and it is further your burden to show that the retention of the evidence would be favorable to your case. So, therefore, the Court is going to carry that motion along with the trial of this case . . . . Does anybody have any comment they would like to make on that?

The prosecutor agreed with the trial judge’s understanding of the issues. Pena then added two more objections–an objection under[*3] the federal Confrontation Clause and an objection under the Texas Constitution’s confrontation clause, Article I, Section 9. After further argument from Pena, the trial judge stated:

I need to hear the evidence before I rule on this. But citing these cases, the United States versus [Valenzuela-Bernal] 3 and the Mahaffey 4 case, a showing that the lost evidence might have been favorable does not have the – – does not meet the materiality standard. And then California versus [Trombetta], 5 again Mahaffey. When an accused complains of lost evidence he must show that the evidence lost is both material and favorable to him.

2488 U.S. 51, 58, 109 S. Ct. 333, 102 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1998) (the State’s failure to preserve “potentially useful evidence” does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to due process unless the defendant can show “bad faith” on the part of the police); see also Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544, 124 S. Ct. 1200, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1060 (2004).
3United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 872-73, 102 S. Ct. 3440, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1193 (1982) (“The mere fact that the Government deports such witnesses is not sufficient to establish a violation of the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A violation of these provisions[*4] requires some showing that the evidence lost would be both material and favorable to the defense.”).
4Mahaffey v. State, 937 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.) (discussing the State’s duty to preserve evidence under federal constitutional law).
5California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 81 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1984) (discussing the State’s duty to preserve evidence under the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment).

During trial, when the State called Charles Mott, a chemist with the Department of Public Safety, to testify, Pena objected to the admission of the lab test results. Pena requested the opportunity to question Mott, outside of the jury’s presence, to assess his qualifications and to determine the admissibility of the test results. Regarding the latter, Pena argued that the admission of the lab results would violate his federal and state confrontation rights. Pena also asserted his right to due process, stating “the objection would be under the due process rights of the accused and the due course of law, which would be the Fifth and Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.” The trial judge granted Pena’s request to question Mott, and after the parties questioned him about[*5] the destruction of the evidence, the trial judge explained:

Now, the Court understands that we have lost evidence here and in these type[s] of cases the defendant must show that the prosecution acted in bad faith when it failed to preserve the evidence to show a violation of due process or due course of law. And the defendant also has to prove that the lost evidence would be material to the case.
With these issues in mind, the trial judge then questioned Mott. Based on Mott’s testimony, the trial judge found that the evidence was material but concluded that it was not favorable to Pena and that the State did not destroy it in bad faith. Pena then reurged his previous objections. In doing so, Pena, for the first time, explicitly relied on the due course of law provision of the Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 19, but he did not suggest that it provides greater protection than the United States Constitution. The trial judge overruled Pena’s objections, and Pena was later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

On appeal in the Waco Court of Appeals, citing Supreme Court precedent, including Youngblood, Pena claimed, among other things, that the trial judge erred by admitting[*6] the lab test results. 6 Although neither party raised the issue, the court of appeals decided to address whether the Texas Constitution’s due course of law provision affords greater protection than the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 7 The court determined that the due course of law provision “provides a greater level of protection with respect to lost or destroyed evidence than does the United States Constitution.” 8 And, despite the absence of evidence showing that law enforcement acted in bad faith, the court, with Chief Justice Gray dissenting, reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. 9

6Pena v. State (Pena II), 191 S.W.3d 133, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also Pena v. State (Pena I), 166 S.W.3d 274, 276-77 (Tex. App.–Waco 2005).
7Pena II, 191 S.W.3d at 134; see also Pena I, 166 S.W.3d at 278.
8Pena I, 166 S.W.3d at 276.
9Id.
The State petitioned for review, which we granted to determine whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial judge’s ruling on a legal theory that Pena never presented to the trial judge or the court of appeals. 10 We reversed and remanded the case, holding that the court erred by addressing the Texas Constitution’s due course[*7] of law provision without first giving the parties an opportunity to brief the issue. 11 We recognized that whether the due course of law provision grants more protection than the Due Process Clause is a novel state constitutional question and therefore requires careful deliberation by an appellate court. 12 And following our usual practice of allowing the lower appellate courts to address preservation in the first instance, 13 we expressly declined to address whether Pena’s due course of law claim was preserved. 14

10Pena II, 191 S.W.3d at 135.
11Id. at 138.
12Id. at 136-37.13See Jones v. State, 942 S.W.2d 1, 2 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
14Pena II, 191 S.W.3d at 136 n.14.
On remand, the court of appeals held that the due course of law provision provides greater protection than the Due Process Clause when the State loses or destroys evidence. 15 The court concluded that Pena’s due course of law rights were violated and held that Pena was harmed. 16

15Pena III, 226 S.W.3d at 651.
16Id. at 654-55.
The State petitioned for review a second time, this time alleging, among other things, that the court of appeals erred in finding that Pena preserved the due course of law provision claim at trial.[*8] We granted review and now conclude that the court of appeals erred.

Analysis
Rule 33.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure governs preservation of error, and states, in part:

(a) In General. –As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that:

(1) the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that:(A) stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context; 17

17TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1.
This Rule encompasses the concept of “party responsibility.” 18 The complaining party bears the responsibility of clearly conveying to the trial judge the particular complaint, including the precise and proper application of the law as well as the underlying rationale. 19 Error preservation does not involve a hyper-technical or formalistic use of words or phrases; instead, “[s]traight forward communication in plain English” is sufficient. 20 To avoid forfeiting a complaint on appeal, the party must “let the trial judge know what he wants, why he thinks he is[*9] entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand him at a time when the judge is in the proper position to do something about it.” 21 This gives the trial judge and the opposing party an opportunity to correct the error. 22 Whether a party’s particular complaint is preserved depends on whether the complaint on appeal comports with the complaint made at trial. 23 In making this determination, we consider the context in which the complaint was made and the parties’ shared understanding at that time. 24

18Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (quoting 1 Stephen Goode, et al., TEXAS PRACTICE: GUIDE TO THE TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL § 103.2 (2d ed. 1993)).
19Id. at 177.
20Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 908-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
21Id. at 909.
22Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 179.

23Id. at 177 (quoting Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331, 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)).
24Lankston, 827 S.W.2d at 911.
Here, the record shows that Pena did not preserve his due course of law provision claim for appellate review, and the Waco Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise. Although Pena eventually invoked the Texas due course of law provision when[*10] objecting before the trial judge, he failed to argue that it provides greater protection than the federal Due Process Clause. Indeed, based on Pena’s initial objection under the Fourteenth Amendment, the record shows that the judge and the State understood that Pena’s complaint was under only the well established federal standard concerning lost or destroyed evidence. Pena never disabused the judge of this notion even when, in reurging his prior objections to “protect the appellate record,” he first cited to Article 1, Section 19. Pena was obligated to put the trial judge on notice of the specific legal theory that he intended to advocate because: the federal constitutional standard was clearly established; 25 the trial judge and the State unmistakably relied solely on the federal standard; and there is no independent interpretation on the subject of lost or destroyed evidence under the Texas Constitution’s due course of law provision. We hold that, by failing to distinguish the rights and protections afforded under the Texas due course of law provision from those provided under the Fourteenth Amendment before the trial judge in this context, Pena failed to preserve his complaint that[*11] the due course of law provides greater protection for appellate review.

25Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 57-58.

Finally, we consider an issue raised by the dissent. The dissent contends that we implicitly ruled that Pena’s due course of law complaint was preserved when we remanded this case in 2006. 26 However, as noted above, we explicitly decided not to address preservation at that time. 27 We did this because the court of appeals never expressly ruled on the issue before proceeding to the merits of the issue as “unassigned error.” 28 Therefore, when remanding for briefing, we took into account two important policy interests: first, to allow the parties to have an opportunity to brief the threshold preservation question given the novelty of the issue; and second, to allow the court of appeals to decide the issue in the first instance with briefing. 29 It defies logic to say that we implicitly ruled on the preservation issue when we expressly declined to do so.

26Post, at 2-5.
27Pena II, 191 S.W.3d at 136 n.14.
28Pena I, 166 S.W.3d at 276-77.
29See Jones, 942 S.W.2d at 2 n.1.

Conclusion
Because Pena did not preserve his Texas Constitution due course of law complaint for appellate review, the court[*12] of appeals erred in addressing that complaint and reversing Pena’s conviction and sentence on that ground. We reverse the court of appeals’s judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Finally, it is unnecessary to reach the State’s remaining grounds in light of our resolution of the preservation issue.
DATE DELIVERED: April 8, 2009
PUBLISH

DISSENT BY: HOLCOMB

DISSENT
HOLCOMB, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which PRICE and JOHNSON, JJ., joined. COCHRAN, J., joined in Part I of the opinion.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that appellant’s Texas constitutional claim was not preserved, for the following two reasons.
1. Our previous disposition of this case.
I believe this holding is especially inappropriate in the procedural context of this case. As the majority has indicated, this is not the first time the State has petitioned this Court on this exact same issue. In fact, the State presented this issue when it filed its first petition, in May 2005, stating specifically: “Did the Court of Appeals err by reversing the trial court’s decision on a legal theory not presented either to the trial court or to the Court of Appeals by the complaining party?” (Emphasis added.)[*13] We granted review on that question and Judge Hervey, in her dissent from our ensuing opinion, expressly noted that she would “decide that the state constitutional claim decided by the Tenth Court was not ‘preserved in the trial below.’” Pena v. State, 191 S.W.3d 133, 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Hervey, J., dissenting) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). But Judge Meyers, who also then dissented from our opinion, disagreed with her on that point. As he noted:

At trial, defense counsel argued in his motion to suppress that the admission of the test results and the testimony surrounding them would violate his due process rights guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution. Thus, the issue of a violation of Appellant’s rights under the Due Course of Law provision was raised and preserved at trial.

Id. at 139 (Meyers, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).

Indeed, Judge Meyers reiterated his position on the preservation of error issue when he articulated his reasons for dissenting in that case:

As this issue is now properly before us, and no statute or caselaw precedent requires us to send the case back to the court of appeals, it violates common sense and judicial[*14] economy to remand it.

Id. (emphasis added).
Even though this disagreement between the judges on the preservation of error question was clear, the Court declined to address that issue at that time. See 191 S.W.3d at 136 n.14. But preservation of error is more than just a technicality. It is actually a procedural gateway that the parties must pass in order to have their claims heard on the merit. We do not address an issue if the party was required to preserve error, but failed to do so. Thus, when we remanded this case to the court of appeals, actually ordering it to obtain briefing from the parties on the underlying claim itself, we had in effect allowed appellant to pass through the procedural gateway. In other words, even though we might have expressly declined to address the preservation issue, we did implicitly address it and decided either that appellant had preserved error or that he should be excused from the preservation requirement in light of the question presented in this case.

In fact, our opinion clearly suggests that we did consider the preservation issue and resolved it in appellant’s favor. We stated that “[w]e have previously held, and reaffirm today, that appellate courts[*15] are free to review ‘unassigned error’ — a claim that was preserved in the trial below but was not raised on appeal.” Id. at 136 (emphasis added). We added that, “[i]n conducting such a review, however, the question becomes whether certain circumstances obligate a court to assign such error by ordering briefing from the parties.” Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, when we remanded the case ordering the court of appeals to obtain briefing from the parties, we were acknowledging that appellant’s claim had been “preserved in the trial below” even though it had “not [been] raised on appeal.” Id.
Our opinion was also quite clear on our reasons for excusing the preservation requirement in this case. As we stated, “[w]e recognize that many, if not most, of the types of error that would prompt sua sponte appellate attention need not be assigned because the error involved constitutes an obvious violation of established rules. Novel constitutional issues are a different matter.” Id. (first, stylistic emphasis in original; later emphases added). As we explained later in the opinion,

We do not suggest that an appellate court must order briefing every time it decides to raise on its own a point of[*16] error not briefed by the parties. As we indicated earlier, some rules — constitutional or otherwise — are already firmly established through prior litigation, having already passed through the fires of adversarial testing. And rules that do not expand the reach of the federal or state constitutions can be overturned by the Legislature; although the cost of mistakes regarding those types of rules is high, a remedy exists. But a novel rule that expands the reach of a constitutional provision can hamstring the Legislature as well as frustrate trial courts and prosecutors who relied upon the rule that was previously in effect.

Id. at 137-38 (emphasis added).
The majority in the present case acknowledges our previous holding that the Texas constitutional question in the present case is a novel issue. See Maj. op. at *5 (“We recognized that whether the due course of law provision grants more protection than the Due Process Clause is a novel state constitutional question and therefore requires careful deliberation by an appellate court.”)(citing Pena, 191 S.W.3d at 136-37). In spite of its acknowledgment of and even apparent agreement with that holding, however, the current majority then[*17] proceeds to dismiss that underlying claim on the same preservation-of-error ground that our previous majority had in effect excused specifically because of its recognition that the underlying Texas constitutional question in the present case was a novel issue. What’s more, while the majority in our previous opinion had spent considerable time discussing, and thus had in fact engaged in “careful deliberation,” id., before it ultimately concluded that the court of appeals had erred only because of its “failure to afford the parties an opportunity to brief” that underlying Texas constitutional issue, see Pena, 191 S.W.3d at 138, the current majority does not even try to explain its departure from our previous leniency on the question of error preservation. In other words, it does not explain why what was no doubt good law to the previous majority, enabling it to order the court of appeals to proceed on the merits of the underlying Texas constitutional claim, is not such good law anymore.

I believe it is fair to say that we are in effect reversing our earlier decision, at least as far as the preservation issue is concerned. In my opinion, the question of preservation became moot when we[*18] remanded the case to the court of appeals ordering it to proceed on the underlying Texas constitutional issue by requesting the parties’ briefs on it. As I noted earlier, we issued that opinion in April 2006.

The court of appeals complied with our orders; and the parties complied with that court’s instructions, researching and filing briefs with that court on the underlying Texas constitutional issue. Then, in May 2007, the court of appeals presented a very detailed and in-depth analysis of that same issue in a published opinion. The State then filed the current petition, in June 2007, and we are now deciding this case in April 2009. In other words, it has been almost three years since we remanded this case to the court of appeals with orders to obtain the parties’ briefing on the underlying Texas constitutional issue. I submit that we are now in effect estopped from declining to address that underlying issue because of our own earlier orders. We cannot and should not put the parties and the court of appeals through all this time, effort, and expense of trying to comply with our own orders to address an issue, and then refuse to address that issue ourselves on the ground that it had[*19] never been preserved for our review, in the first place. It is simply not fair, either to the parties or to the court of appeals; and it certainly does not reflect well on this Court. We need to be consistent in the approach we take, at least in our dealing with the same case.
2. Appellant did preserve error

Personally, I believe that appellant did preserve error. The trial transcript is replete with appellant’s repeated assertion of his rights under both the Federal Due Process Clause and the Texas Due Course of Law provision. If he truly believed that both these provisions were synonymous and provided identical protection, he did not need to keep invoking the state law. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is sufficient to provide a defendant in a state trial with all the due process protection guaranteed by the federal constitution. Thus, the fact that appellant carefully and repeatedly went to the trouble of invoking both of those provisions every single time that he objected, indicates that he was hoping one or the other would provide greater protection and, therefore, did his best to preserve error on whichever ground the appellate courts ultimately decided[*20] did provide more protection.
In addition, I find it significant that appellant, in his “Omnibus Pretrial Motions,” clearly asked the trial court to suppress the evidence in question (testimony and reports related to the marijuana that was destroyed by the State before appellant could have it independently tested) because it had been obtained in violation of “the United States Constitution or the Texas Constitution.” (Emphasis added.) The trial court also recognized the possibility of differing levels of protection afforded by the federal and state provisions, as it stated:

Now, the Court understands that we have lost evidence here and in these type [of] cases the defendant must show that the prosecution acted in bad faith when it failed to preserve the evidence to show violation of due process or due course of law.

(Emphasis added.)

It is also important to note that appellant did not stop at invoking the federal Due Process and the state Due Course of Law provisions. He also invoked provisions of the Texas Health and Safety Code and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The purpose of his efforts was quite clear: the State had destroyed what both the trial court and the court of appeals[*21] agreed was “material” evidence against him, and he was trying to invoke whatever authority — federal or state — that he could possibly think of that might have provided him with the most protection in light of such destruction. It is the State’s burden to prove the defendant’s guilt; and Texas law in particular requires the State to take “at least five random and representative samples” of “a controlled substance property or plant” and to preserve “a sufficient quantity” to be provided for discovery by the defense, before the State is allowed to destroy the rest of such evidence. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.160. But in this case, the State destroyed the very evidence that established appellant’s guilt, 1 yet still felt free to proceed with the prosecution on the basis of a lab report and testimony based solely on that lab report, 2 even though the defense had never gotten a chance to vindicate his rights, under Texas law, to independently test and confirm the identity of the destroyed evidence.

1Appellant could not have been charged or prosecuted for possessing marijuana if the defense had been able to test and prove the substance to be something other than marijuana.
2The[*22] chemist testified that he could not personally remember that particular testing because it had been almost five years since he had done that testing. He therefore relied exclusively on the aforementioned lab report for his testimony.
In fact, defense counsel made these concerns quite clear when he told the trial court:

And I would again just — if I understand the Court [is] going to let this testimony in, that this was tested as marijuana, that it was marijuana and the weight of the marijuana, and when the Court found that it wasn’t done purposefully by the laboratory, be it the State of Texas, that puts defense counsel in a posture, Judge, where we are forced to assume the burden and prove a negative.

(Emphasis added.) The Court’s empathy was equally clear as it responded, “I know that, Mr. Cahill. But you know, I didn’t write the law.” It even elaborated further:
I’m just trying to follow the law and that’s what these cases say. I realize it puts the defendant in a predicament. And you’re doing just what I would do if I was in your shoes. But I didn’t write the law. I have got to follow the law that the courts write for me and that’s what I’m trying to do and that’s what they told me[*23] to do so I’m doing it.

The trial court was in fact quite understanding and afforded the defense counsel every opportunity to offer a case — any case — providing the protection that appellant sought to exclude the evidence in question. But then, no such case law exists! As I noted earlier, this Court itself had recognized in our first opinion in this case that whether the Texas Due Course of Law provision provides greater support than the federal Due Process of Law is a novel question. Thus, all that appellant could and did do was to invoke both those federal and Texas provisions. Whether one of them offered more protection than the other was a question of law that could be addressed and resolved only by an appellate court.
The defense counsel submitted pre-trial motions, argued vigorously at the suppression hearing, and objected consistently throughout the trial on the grounds of both the federal Due Process Clause and the Texas Due Course of Law provisions. In explaining these grounds for his objections, the defense counsel made it crystal clear that he was trying to invoke whichever authority — federal or state — would have provided him the most protection to exclude the evidence[*24] in question. In short, I believe that the defense counsel made his point abundantly clear to make the trial court aware of his complaint and thus preserved error under the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 on the underlying Texas constitutional question in this case. We should therefore now proceed to address that underlying question. 3

3I express no opinion about the merit of the underlying claim in this case, except to note that, in some cases at least, we have held that the Texas Constitution offers more protection than the comparable provisions of the federal Constitution. See, e.g., Heitman v. State, 815 S.W.2d 681, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (concluding that “this Court, when analyzing and interpreting Art. I, § 9, Tex. Const., will not be bound by Supreme Court decisions addressing the comparable Fourth Amendment issue.”) (footnote omitted).
* * * *
The majority adds the following in response to the first issue I raised:

Finally, we consider an issue raised by the dissent. The dissent contends that we implicitly ruled that Pena’s due course of law complaint was preserved when we remanded this case in 2006. However, as noted above, we explicitly decided not to address preservation[*25] at that time. We did this because the court of appeals never expressly ruled on the issue before proceeding to the merits of the issue as “unassigned error.” Therefore, when remanding for briefing, we took into account two important policy interests: first, to allow the parties to have an opportunity to brief the threshold preservation question given the novelty of the issue; and second, to allow the court of appeals to decide the issue in the first instance with briefing. It defies logic to say that we implicitly ruled on the preservation issue when we expressly declined to do so.

Maj. op. at 8-9 (citations omitted).
The majority fails to realize, however, that we did not mention any of this in our previous opinion. See Pena, 191 S.W.3d. For instance, our opinion never stated that the court of appeals had failed to “expressly rule[]” on the preservation issue. See id. We also never instructed the court of appeals to either address or request briefing on that issue. See id. Thus, contrary to the current majority’s assertion, we never “allow[ed] the parties to have an opportunity to brief the threshold preservation question.” See Maj. op. at 9. Moreover, our earlier opinion says nothing[*26] about the “two important policy interests” only now articulated by the current majority. See id.; see also Pena, 191 S.W.3d. In fact, the only time that we talked about preservation was in that footnote in which we expressly declined to address the question of preservation. See Pena, 191 S.W.3d. at 136 n.14. Except for that one footnote, our entire opinion was devoted exclusively to the question of whether it was appropriate for the court of appeals to have addressed the underlying Texas constitutional issue without first obtaining briefing from the parties on that underlying issue. In short, there was nothing in our earlier opinion that could have alerted either the parties or the court of appeals to the fact that they were supposed to address anything other than the underlying issue.
Finally, I don’t see anything that “defies logic” 4 in pointing out the inconsistencies in both our previous and current opinions. As I noted earlier, we had stated in our previous opinion that “[w]e have previously held, and reaffirm today, that appellate courts are free to review ‘unassigned error’ — a claim that was preserved in the trial below but was not raised on appeal.” See Pena, 191 S.W.3d. at 136.[*27] Except for that one footnote in which we expressly declined to address the preservation question, see id. at 136 n.14, we devoted the entire opinion to discussing the lower court’s need for obtaining party briefing on the underlying Texas constitutional issue. In fact, we concluded that opinion by ordering the court of appeals to obtain such briefing solely on that underlying issue. The only logical way to reconcile this apparent discrepancy between the disavowing footnote and the rest of the opinion is to assume that we had decided to relax the preservation requirement in light of the novelty of the underlying question presented in the case, and that the purpose of the disavowing footnote was merely to note our unwillingness to expressly discuss our reasons for having relaxed that requirement.

4Maj. op. at 9.

But the current majority contests this logical assumption and insists that we had in effect reserved some right to dismiss this case on the grounds of preservation, in spite of all the time, money and effort spent by the parties and the court of appeals addressing the underlying Texas Constitutional issue that we had explicitly ordered them to address three years ago. But if that[*28] is true, then the only logical explanation for the above-mentioned discrepancy between the footnote and the rest of our early opinion is that we had been internally inconsistent when, on the one hand, we devoted practically our entire opinion discussing the lower court’s need for obtaining party briefing solely on the underlying Texas constitutional issue; while, on the other hand, summarily declined to address what the majority now calls “the threshold preservation question” 5 in a mere footnote. See Pena at 136 n.14. I submit, however, that there was no such internal inconsistency in our previous opinion, and that it is the current opinion summarily dismissing the underlying claim that is actually inconsistent with our earlier approach. But no matter how one chooses to look at it, I believe that the only clear message that our opinion sends out today is that we are consistent in being inconsistent.

5Maj. op. at 9 (emphasis added).
For all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
FILED: April 8, 2009.
PUBLISH

Categories

Archives

Take the first step toward protecting your freedom by contacting us now

Testimonials

John T. Floyd Law Firm IconJohn T. Floyd Law Firm

3730 Kirby Drive # 750, Houston

4.9 108 reviews

  • Avatar Jeannette Young ★★★★★ 2 weeks ago
    If you have hired attorneys that meet the Webster dictionary definition, ie: "Attorney " is a person that has a law degree, will not be totally honest, can take your money … More and not earn it, will put you off until he is ready to talk to you, and/or never study your case to be able to defend you. Mr. Floyd is the only attorney that doesn't fit that definition!! You will be delighted to have Mr. John Floyd in your corner! Not one attorney that I have ever met that would ever return a check that I sent to him, because he said I paid him too much! Wow! That right there should tell you something about his integrity!!!!! He has a very calm demeanor and doesn't stretch the truth even if you don't want to hear it, he will tell you the truth. Call and set up an appointment with him and judge for yourself. You are wasting time and money on any other attorney, just hire the best, Mr. Floyd.
  • Avatar Curtis Shane Kessler ★★★★★ 2 months ago
    John T. Floyd and his team are some of the best people! I was able to get a second opinion from them on legal advice. His team has been honest, kind, and very informative which has … More been a huge blesssing.
  • Avatar Jose Penaloza ★★★★★ 2 months ago
    I highly recommend John T. Floyd Lawfirm. They are truly knowledgeable and willing to go the extra mile to defend your innocence. Psalms 35
  • Avatar Yizheng Tu ★★★★★ 3 months ago
    Outstanding!Professional knowledge. Rich experiences. Good outcome.
  • Avatar Arslan Tajammul ★★★★★ 3 months ago
  • Avatar DjKaycee Moflava ★★★★★ 4 months ago
    The best lawyer I ever encounter with a very good personality. He’s very professional and he will go far and beyond for his clients best interest. He’s definitely a 5 star attorney … More when it comes to delivering. I couldn’t be more happier that I hired him !! 👏👏👏👏
  • Avatar Gloria Smith ★★★★★ 4 months ago
  • Avatar Yoli ★★★★★ 4 months ago
    I can honestly say from what I have seen so far, Floyd is a compassionate soul who cares for his client's. Floyd is by far very knowledgeable in this area. He's currently … More assisting my [Father] on a sex assault. We are all suffering so much as my father is an elder man, but we have faith in God, and Mr. Floyd he can dismissed this outrageous allegation soon. Thank you, yoli
  • Avatar Abdulkadir Issa ★★★★★ 8 months ago
    I had wonderful experience with this law firm. They were so helpful and knowledgeable of the process.my case was dismissed because of Mr John T Floyd,thank you for everything .
  • Avatar Rashid Ibrar ★★★★★ 8 months ago
    I am very happy today my case dismissed God bless Mr John T Floyd very good lawyer thanks you so mush sir
  • Avatar Susan McDaniel ★★★★★ 8 months ago
    I had a great experience with this Law Firm, the kind staff helped me locate a Lawyer even though they were unable to take my case.
    They were very helpful, kind and returned my call
    … More in a timely manner. I would definitely recommend them and use them in the future.
  • Avatar Mahmoud Abdelwahed ★★★★★ 11 months ago
    I can tell that Jone is an excellent attorney in Houston. Personally, he is a great man. In addition to great service and amazing results. Recommended
  • Avatar Mr. K ★★★★★ a year ago
    Mr. Floyd is an incredible attorney and human being. He cares about your case, the facts, the law, and your life! I am sorry for whatever situation you are going through, but choosing … More Mr. Floyd, his firm, and their professional experience to help you, will be the best decision you ever make!
  • Avatar Domenique Cary ★★★★★ a year ago
    John T Floyd is a straight shooter! He was very direct and responsive to my phone calls and questions. I was in awe of his knowledge, and professional decorum! The best decision that … More you could make is to schedule a consultation with him before considering anyone else!
  • Avatar Eugene Guy ★★★★★ a year ago
    I asked the Law Office of John T. Floyd a very important question regarding the legal aspects of purchasing a firearm with a deferred adjudication charge. They answered the question … More very professionally and accurately and I was quite pleased with the information that was shared. I recommend this law firm because they are very honest and will work for you and with you.
  • Avatar Mark J ★★★★★ a year ago
    I’ve never been one to write reviews but this time I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to say something. I had some serious legal questions I needed answers to concerning Texas laws. … More Being I’m from another state, I found and reached out to Attorney John Floyd for the answers. Mr Floyd listened to to my requests and told me what he need from me and went out of his way to get me the answers. Very polite, straightforward and professional, I can’t thank him enough for all he’s done. Whatever your legal case may be, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend Mr Floyd.
  • Avatar Pat Garner ★★★★★ a year ago
    John & Chris helped my family member get a reduced charge and acceptable plea agreement in place. Their compassion, attention to every detail was what helped carry the day.Truly … More the best of the best.P
  • Avatar Summer A ★★★★★ a year ago
    Mr. Floyd is both ethical and loyal to his clients; two qualities that are hard to find specially in lawyers. I'd definitely recommend him to anyone.Positive
    Professionalism …More
    … More
  • Avatar Abdulraouf Haj ★★★★★ a year ago
    Mr. John was very helpful and truly was the reason why my case was dismissed. Thank you so much Mr. John I truly recommend everyone in need to work with him.
  • Avatar Hope Fischer ★★★★★ a year ago
    His service to the community and diligence to helping his clients speaks for its self! Not to mention the many articles, papers and TV appearances that speak to his intellect
  • Avatar Faisal Mahmood ★★★★★ a year ago
    John has given Excellent service and have been very friendly and extremely helpful to us. I highly recommend this law firm
  • Avatar Mohammed Nabulsi ★★★★★ a year ago
    This law firm is diligent, responsive and succeeded in getting my case dismissed. 10/10 would recommend.
  • Avatar Anthony Stark ★★★★★ a year ago
    super knowledgeable, good attitude, would definitely recommend him
  • Avatar Lloyd Kirby ★★★★★ a year ago
    Very helpful, knowledgeable and honest.
  • Avatar Tarek Zaghloul ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    John is an amazing person and lawyer who is actually very understanding of how anxious I got and although it was hard to reach him sometimes because of his schedule, but never worry … More he is on top of things. He is very organized, very smart. I had the experience to go through a trial with him, and he always plans ahead well and is actually open and receptive to any ideas and comments I had and he was quick to decide which is right to use at the moment. I really appreciated working with him and Chris. Great lawyers and great people. As I was reminded by John, I am adding that the Jury reached a not guilty decision on the original charge and on a lesser charge in just 25 minutes. It took more time to write the charge and instructions for the jury than it took them to reach a decision.
  • Avatar Anya Palapa ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Highly recommend John T Floyd law firm, great response time and demeanor.I was researching an on-going criminal case, when I found an informative article written by John Floyd (about … More the perils of expert testimony). I called his office, and was very pleased to receive a timely call back. Not only was Mr. Floyd candid and helpful, but he had the kindest demeanor of any attorney that I've dealt with. I am so glad to have found this firm.
  • Avatar Joffre Cross II (Jeff) ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Although I am not a client, John Floyd contacted me the same day I sent an email requesting advice, answered my questions and even when further to assist with my issue and communicated … More with me the next day. A true credit to his profession and I can only imagine how well he provides services to his actual clients!
  • Avatar jeannette young ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    I give Mr. Floyd 10 Stars if they were available so I'm giving him five that's all that's available. The first time I left a message for him it was on a Friday after … More 5 p.m. and within 15 minutes he called me back I told him I needed to buy a lotto ticket because that has never happened. I knew from our chat and him calling me back that he was different from any attorney I've tried to talk to left messages never got called back they didn't even know what I needed and neither did Mr. Floyd but he did call me back. I was very interested in meeting with mr. Floyd about my case because I felt he was very transparent honest and genuine. If you've ever dealt with attorneys they don't have those traits but Mr. Floyd does. He was very honest with me told me what I could and could not do with my case. He is not egotistical he's very compassionate and he actually reads the documents you sent him unbelievable that's never happened. He will be the only lawyer I refer to anyone that needs his expertise. If you're in need of a criminal defense attorney please give John T Floyd a call you will not be disappointed.
  • Avatar 9salmon ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Mr John is a great human being and a very knowledgeable attorney. He has always called me back promptly,advised me very clearly and never rushed our conversation. i was wrongfully accused … More and Mr John had my case DISMISSED!! on the day of trial after fighting for me for two years. I am very thankful to the John T. Floyd Law Firm. You will not go wrong with John. Mr John you deserve way more then 5 stars.Thank youShaikh.
  • Avatar Ken R ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    John Floyd Law Firm is highly recommended for your legal needs. He and his staff are highly professional in every aspect. Easy and comfortable feeling talking with him, and he understands … More your needs and explains your legal advice in a way you can understand. Enough just cant be said. Thank You Sir.Positive
    Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More
  • Avatar Jeff Vaughn ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    John was kind enough to assist me with legal advise on my firearm gun rights restoration. I highly recommend him and his firm. Very professional and knowledgeable. If I need assistance … More in the future I will definitely go back to him.
  • Avatar Reginald Bell ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    What I liked the most was that he actually returned my phone after leaving a message unlike pretty much everyone else I called prior. He listened and answered my question with the best … More advice that would benefit me the most. I was actually lost from moving to Texas from a different state we’re laws vary and he pointed me toward the right direction to get a understanding of if I need to do business with him now or after I contact a lawyer in my home state.
  • Avatar Debby Griffin ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    John T Floyd handled my sons case & got a dismissal for us! He is great to work with, gets back to you promptly & knows what he’s doing. Definitely one of the best we have had … More to deal with!Positive
    Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More
  • Avatar Gabriela ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    John is honestly the best! The whole team is. He answered me in a timely manner and helped me when my friend was going through a situation in Houston, Texas as an inmate. He was so … More thorough, honest, and without charging me sent me so much information because I was out of the loop. He never once tried to take you for your money, he did all that he could to. help me and I can't thank him enough.
  • Avatar Randy Rich ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    I have used John on two occasions and found him to have full knowledge of Texas law, diligent, creative in plan, and aggressive in defense. He is the best criminal defense attorney … More in the State of Texas. No reason to look elsewhere.
  • Avatar Robert Robinson ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    I have been calling to get some legal advice pertaining to gun rights. A few legal offices would not even take my call because quote " your not a client and Im losing money. … More I I called John T. Floyd Law Firm and they were not only able to answer my question, but gave great detail information, and further elaborated on their answer. I hope I do not have to use them in the future, but if I do need to, they will be my first call.
  • Avatar Tyler Barr ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Great lawyer! Needed some advice and gave me a Consultation, and advice for steps to take, without any hassle l, Was a honest guy and actually wanted to help me and not just take my … More money! Highly recommend!!Positive
    Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More
  • Avatar Clint B ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Attorney Floyd replied very timely to my inquiry and he provided practical advice. I will not hesitate to contact him in the future if I need additional legal counsel.
  • Avatar Huey B ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Highly recommend, down to earth lawyer. Talked to me about my legal issues without being super money hungry and genuinely wanted to help me with my legal problems. 5 stars ⭐️.
  • Avatar Ben Blackman ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Very knowledgeable and professional. I called and left a message Friday morning and before end of business that day I received a call back.Positive
    Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism
    … More …More
  • Avatar Manny Figueroa:: ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Very helpful highly recommended for any Question / case will definitely keep he's name and number for any other legal advice
  • Avatar Rosalinda Garcia ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Excellent service and a lawyer that doesn't lie. He does what he says. JW recommends him.
  • Avatar Cord Ary ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    One of the best services Ive used in awhile. Thank you for all the help and answers. You got my life back. Thank youPositive
    Quality …More
  • Avatar William Shaw (Bill) ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Im impressed. This guy was polite and professional and most important...he listened.
  • Avatar Mohammed Masood ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Good experience and very good lawyer
  • Avatar Joseph Floyd ★★★★★ 2 years ago
  • Avatar Arsalan Safiullah ★★★★★ 2 years ago
  • Avatar Elvis Maldonado ★★★★★ 2 years ago
    Positive
    Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, ValueMore
  • Avatar Tylor St. Clair ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    It was a pleasure speaking with John. He is knowledgeable and has a true desire to help the people of society. I turned to him for some guidance of a long-standing issue. He never … More rushed our conversation and went out of his way to look into the details to provide the right answer as well as assist me anyway he could. Thank you for our conversations and I wish your and your firm the best. If you need a lawyer, John Floyd is your guy!
  • Avatar Andrew Vo ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    John represented me in court for roughly 2 years. I won't (and shouldn't) get into any serious details, but let me tell you that I couldn't have chosen anyone better. … More Seriously.Every appearance in court I felt very comfortable. The judge and DA's had a high regard for his reputation. There is a time I recall where simply his presence greatly impacted the court's interpretation of my case and persons. We were in front of the stand and the judge could not stop talking about John's prestige and past accomplishments and how that took in relation to my case. I kept silent in front of the judge, but I observed then that John's popularity and reputation within the court had already given me a better looking rapport with the judge. Let me tell you, I never had more confidence then, knowing that the judge held him in such high regard.This is not to mention how personable John is. I'll be honest that during the stress of court, sharing a laugh with your lawyer helps a lot. This may sound a lot, but I really appreciated the relationship we had then. This is also not to mention that he was able to deal very well with any DA that rotated over the years. Seriously, John was great, prompt with information and very hands on with my case. I had great peace those 2 years until everything wrapped up.If you're looking for a lawyer, I highly, HIGHLY recommend the John T. Floyd Law Firm. He IS nationally renowned, you know. He'll get the job done to the utmost confidence. He's very experienced and has a great record to boot. I am glad to have had him represent me in court and trust me that I never thought I'd ever say that (and whoever does?). We explored every avenue of victory together and I personally enjoyed the experience, despite the seriousness of the accusation.If you have a case that needs to be represented at the highest levels, choose John T. Floyd. He's a good man and very good at what he does. Him and his team has the experience you need to make the best decisions and options to get the best outcome for your case. We got the best result I could possibly ask for, thank God.Seriously. Hire John. He knows what he's doing.Seriously.
  • Avatar Banning Lary ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    One of the few honest lawyers I have ever talked to. His complimentary consultation was knowledgeable and thorough. He knew exactly what the issue was and how to handle it. His candid … More appraisal of the situation and how to proceed saved me thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you have a case requiring expertise in John's area of practice, look no further. Hire this man!
  • Avatar Larry Green ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    I had the opportunity to read an article that Mr. Floyd wrote and it was very interesting. I called him about the article and advice concerning a similar situation. He not only gave … More me excellent advice, he pointed out not just what I wanted to hear but what I needed to hear concerning my situation. The Good, The Bad and The ugly in a manner or speaking. He spoke with an open and honest heart with information to help me and not just to get a client.
  • Avatar Jackie Cohen ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    If you are in trouble and need a lawyer, contact the John T. Floyd law firm. Some of the best lawyers in Texas work there! Understanding and helpful lawyers and staff that will do all … More they can to help you 😊
  • Avatar It’s Me ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    He gave me one of the most honest answers I have received in a very long time about any issue I was having with anything. Legal or not legal. I highly recommend giving him a call and … More will be referring him to friends and family if they have any issues in the future.Positive
    Responsiveness, Professionalism …More
  • Avatar I’m Home ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    He took time out of his day to answer my legal questions and didn’t even charge me. I would definitely recommend him to you.
  • Avatar Tad Nieschwietz ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    Gave free consultation on getting gun rights back. He truly cares about gun rights and getting you the help you deserve. 100% worth a callPositive
    Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism,
    … More Value …More
  • Avatar Maher Abbara ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    Very professional, great quality work, and very friendly and helpful. Overall, their service is phenomenal. I recommend Mr. Floyd to anyone.
  • Avatar Thomas McLaughlin ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    Mr. Floyd took the time to explain his experience with the law to me in layman's terms. Definitely give him a call.Positive
    Responsiveness, Professionalism …More
  • Avatar Zarrie Adkins ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    He was honest , knowledgeable , and professional about what we talked about. Most lawyers are just about the money , but not john.Positive
    Professionalism …More
  • Avatar Keisha Gaches ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    He was very truthful and honest with us very great man I would recommend him and we would use him again
  • Avatar Samyra Carrasquillo ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    Very professional honest and works hard currently working my husband’s appeal I pray he does his best workPositive
    Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More
  • Avatar Raul Perez ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    I contacted John T. Floyd Law firm and I was very satisfied with service extremely helpful and friendly thank you Mr. FloydPositive
    Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More
    … More
  • Avatar Johnny Johnson Jr ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    This law frim was informative,great response time ,and the attorney called back not some secretary or legal assistant thank u guys for all your help wish it was more like youPositive … More
    Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More
  • Avatar Dana Adkison ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    I would highly recommend Mr Floyd. He was very helpful and knowledge with a legal question I had.Positive
    Professionalism …More
  • Avatar Crecencio Fabian ★★★★★ 3 years ago
    He explained my case better then any other lawyerPositive
    Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More
  • Avatar Barry Lewis ★★★★ 3 years ago
    Very informative
  • Avatar Ismael Flores ★★★★★ 3 years ago
  • Avatar Haley Danielle Lummus ★★★★★ 3 years ago
  • Avatar Eddie Villarreal ★★★★★ 3 years ago
  • Avatar Neil Productions ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    Had the pleasure speaking with John Floyd on a personal matter, he was very responsive, nothing but exceptional, and he really cares about you with sincerity and most importantly knows … More what is he talking about! No games or bs, his approach to my situation even though I knew it was probably way smaller then what he normally takes on, he was extremely helpful and didn't care about the size of the matter like other attorneys do. He really looked out for my best interests. You can tell he has decades of experience doing what he does just by chatting with him. I would highly recommend him.
  • Avatar S A ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    Words can’t describe how grateful I am for working with John, he went above and beyond my expectation. I was wrongly accused and hired many lawyers before hiring John Floyd but they … More all disappointed me, I had lost hope until a friend of mine referred me to John. From the start he had my best interest in mind and gave helpful advice, he explained the process and guided me. He put more work and time than all my previous lawyers that cost me thousands of dollars. He was constantly communicating with court and defended me more than all lawyer i had hired before him. Don’t waste your time and money like I did, believe me when I say I hired countless lawyers before him and no one came close to John. I’m forever thankful for him for fighting for my innocence and getting my case dismissed. Thank you so much🙏🏼🙏🏼
  • Avatar Gary Watch ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    I called Mr Floyd and left a message, with in the hour I received a call back with much more information then I could have ever expected. Mr Floyd was very informative on every question … More I had for him. He seemed like he cared, instead of like most attorneys that you talk to that are just out for a quick buck. If you want someone that is going to shoot strait with you, and has your best interest in hand, this is you guy. This was the best experience that I have ever had with an lawyer.
  • Avatar Saman Daftarian ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    I can state with confidence that Mr. Floyd and his team are the most competent and professional lawyers one can hope for. My case was quite complex and I admit that as a law student … More I was not the most patient client. Mr. Floyd did a phenomenal job of managing the bench, prosecution and myself! The result was above expectation, and I will never hesitate to recommend this firm regardless of the caliber of the case at issue.
  • Avatar calvin robinson ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    It was a pleasure working with Mr. Floyd. I contacted him regarding a legal matter and he was extremely knowledgeable about the law, and responded in a timely manner. I appreciated … More the fact I did not feel rushed, and he made sure he thoroughly answered all questions I had. I would highly recommend him!Positive
    Responsiveness, Professionalism …More
  • Avatar Alan Howk ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    Spoke with John Floyd about a 45 year old criminal case I was involved in. I had very little information about the case and John helped me search what records were available and gave … More me guidance to find more information. He was very professional and took his time helping me. I may need to hire a lawyer on this case and Mr. Floyd will be the man.Thanks John.
  • Avatar CMCustom Cycles ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    Very professional and straight forward. He's not going to waste your time or money. Very knowledgeable in a large range of possible matters one could face living in these days … More and times. If ever you need legal assistance, this is who I would suggest. Awesome!Positive
    Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More
  • Avatar Greg Page ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    I called about some legal questions I needed to get clarified and John was able to give me clarification and sound advice. I will definitely contact John for all future legal questions … More and issues.Thank you John!Positive
    Responsiveness, Professionalism, Value …More
  • Avatar Kristen Rankin ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    Knows his stuff and well respected with DA and judges. I have referred him a couple times and every client has been satisfied
  • Avatar Kedar Puranik ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    John is beyond knowledgeable! If I decide to pursue my case any further I would only have him represent me.
  • Avatar Joseph Sivadon ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    What a great attorney, this guy really took time out of his day to answer my questions and explain my case to me. Very grateful, thank you so muchPositive
    Professionalism …More
  • Avatar Lex Strider ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    Absolutely a very professional lawyer. Very well read in the current law and more than willing to help if needed.
  • Avatar karim khalifa ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    Mr. John he’s a professional he knows what he’s doing and he’s patient they recommend Him stronglyPositive
    Professionalism …More
  • Avatar James Haggard ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    Great service, very knowledgable and happy to help with any questions I had
  • Avatar David Sustaita ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    Quick to action and helpful and knowledgeable with entertainment industry based issues!
  • Avatar Chad Groves ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    Responded on a holiday week. Very knowledgeable and reassuring.
  • Avatar Mark Fein ★★★★★ 4 years ago
    Very professional
  • Avatar Bthomason903 Bthomason903 ★★★★★ 4 years ago
  • Avatar Anton Jasser ★★★★★ 4 years ago
  • Avatar Alma Garza ★★★★★ 4 years ago
  • Avatar Victory 2020 ★★★★★ 6 years ago
    I want to thank John T. Floyd and all of his team. He is the best lawyer who cares aboutHis clients and fights really hard to get the best outcome. He is a fighter and he is awesome!!!I … More recommend if any one needs criminal defense , he is the BEST. We had a really serious caseAnd we are very thankful for the outcome. Thank you John!!!!! God bless you!!!!!!
  • Avatar Alma Garcia Cunningham ★★★★★ 6 years ago
    The attorneys at John T. Floyd Law Firm work diligently to achieve the best possible results for their clients. They are caring and knowledgeable professionals. Their expertise in the … More law and their experience as trial attorneys makes them the right choice as a defense attorney. I recommend this law firm highly.
  • Avatar Rajiv Patel ★★★★★ 6 years ago
    From beginning to end this firm handled my case like the top tier professionals they are. I would not trust ANYONE else with my legal needs after having less than stellar experiences … More with other teams. Thank you Floyd!!!
  • Avatar Jose Tapia ★★★★★ 6 years ago
    I really felt like the team cared about my case and am super satisfied with the outcome. Would not recommend anyone else!
  • Avatar Sagar Patel ★★★★★ 6 years ago
    These guys do amazing work and have phenomenal service! Hands down best in the Houston area!!
  • Avatar RAYNINN ★★★★★ 6 years ago
    John and Chris are true professionals! Love those guys like family!
  • Avatar Virginia Martin ★★★★★ 6 years ago
    Mr. Floyd and his team are very knowledgeable, informative, and helpful.
  • Avatar Darla Latham ★★★★★ 6 years ago
    A team you can depend on to stand up and fight for you to prove the truth the whole truth!
  • Avatar Veronica Elorza ★★★★★ 6 years ago
  • Avatar Karetta Lux ★★★★★ 7 years ago
    Mr. John T. Floyd represented me.I couldn't be happier with the outcome he managed to achieve on an VERY Important case that was dismissed the day of Trial. He is patient & … More very knowledgeable of the legal system. I HIGHLY recommend him to anyone in need of a lawyer!John, I am forever grateful & satisfied with the effort you put forth & all you did for me. Thank you isn't enough!God bless you & your family!
  • Avatar GM ★★★★★ 8 years ago
    The John T. Floyd Law Firm assisted me, and I can tell you that the attorney took the time to answer my questions, and I didn't feel rushed or dismissed as I have experienced in … More the past with attorneys. The attorney was very nice and extremely knowledgeable. Initial impressions and continued excellent customer service are big factors for me and as such I would highly recommend this firm.
  • Avatar Sandra Bivens ★★★★★ 8 years ago
    I thank you for your efforts to help Felons regain their Civil rights, and for the information on possession , I am A convicted Felon, no violent history. I am an expert shot, I am … More 76 yoa, and very concerned about the present lake of Security in our State and Country. God Bless and Prosper you in your efforts, Your friend, Sonny Bivens
  • Avatar Mike Kittelson ★★★★★ 8 years ago
    I really appreciated both Chris and John helping with my legal questions and concerns. Both are good guys and I would not hesitate to recommend them.
  • Avatar Robert Hair ★★★★★ 8 years ago
    Extremely helpful!!! Helping me understand the law.

John T. Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization

Request A Confidential Consultation

Fields marked with an * are required

"*" indicates required fields

I Have Read The Disclaimer*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Our Location

Copyright © 2024 John T. Floyd Law Firm • All rights reserved.