The Legal and Financial Consequences of a Texas Identity Theft Conviction
Identity theft is a serious crime that involves stealing someone’s “Identifying information” to commit fraud or otRead More
The Castle Doctrine is a legal concept that has been the subject of much debate and controversy in recent years. It has become particularly relevant in Texas, where it is seen as an important part of the state’s self-defense laws. The Castle Doctrine is based on the idea that a person’s home is their castle, and they have the right to defend it from any threat. However, the Castle Doctrine is not a simple concept, and its application in criminal cases can be complex and tricky. It is important for anyone involved in a criminal case in Texas where the Castle Doctrine may apply to understand how it works and how it can affect their case.
The Castle Doctrine in Texas is based on the idea that a person has the right to defend their home or property from intruders. Under this law, a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to protect themselves or others from the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
The Castle Doctrine applies when the person using deadly force is in their own home, their place of business, or their vehicle. It also applies if the person using deadly force is defending someone in one of these places.
However, the Castle Doctrine does not give a person the right to use deadly force in all situations. The use of deadly force must be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.
If you have been involved in a criminal case in Texas where the Castle Doctrine may apply, it is important to understand how it can affect your case.
First, if you used deadly force to protect yourself or your property, you may be able to use the Castle Doctrine as a defense. However, you must prove that using deadly force was reasonable and necessary.
Second, if you are a crime victim and used deadly force to defend yourself or others, the Castle Doctrine can provide you with legal protection. In Texas, a person found to have used deadly force in self-defense may be immune from civil liability for any injuries or death resulting from the use of force.
However, it is important to note that the Castle Doctrine is not a blanket defense for all deadly force situations. You must prove that using force was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.
The Castle Doctrine in Texas is a legal principle that allows individuals to use deadly force to protect their homes, property, or person from an intruder or attacker. It is based on the fundamental idea that a person’s home is their castle, and they have the right to defend it from any threat.
However, while the Castle Doctrine provides certain legal protections, its application in criminal cases can be complex and tricky. To successfully invoke the Castle Doctrine in Texas, the person using force must have a reasonable belief that they or someone else is facing an imminent threat of harm, and their use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the threat.
If you are involved in a criminal case in Texas where the Castle Doctrine may apply, it is essential to understand how it works and how it can affect your case. Working with an experienced criminal defense attorney knowledgeable about the complexities of the Castle Doctrine and who can advise you on your legal options can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case.
Your attorney can review the circumstances of your case, evaluate whether the Castle Doctrine applies, and develop a strong defense strategy to protect your rights and interests. With the right legal representation, you can navigate the complexities of the Castle Doctrine in Texas and seek a favorable outcome in your case.
Client was charged by Federal Indictment with making a social media post that threatened Malicious Damage and Destruction of a Building by Means of Fire and Explosives in violation of Federal law. The Defense showed that Client was a law-abiding citizen. The Defense further showed that the alleged threat was not made with any criminal intent.
The client, a public official with a long history of public service, was accused by a former girlfriend of engaging in non-consensual sexual relations. The Defense investigation and analysis showed through a detailed timeline that the allegation made absolutely no sense. Phone records, including calls and texts, were relied on to help establish an accurate timeline. The Defense met with law enforcement and reviewed a detailed package that exonerated the accused.
Client, a Houston area professional who frequently travels for work, was accused by his wife of assaulting her in his family home. Defense showed that wife’s story lacked credibility and there was no physical evidence in support of the wife’s allegation.
The client, a young Black male, was driving his car when police pulled him over for no apparent reason. It looked to be a profile stop. The client was accused of possessing a controlled substance in his vehicle. The Defense showed that there was no lawful basis for the police to stop the Client’s car. The Defense also showed that there was no lawful basis for the search of the Client’s car. It was a bad search, so the seized evidence was not admissible.
Client charged in Federal Indictment In “Operation Wrecking Ball” with 55 named co-defendants. Client faced seven charges. Client was charged with Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine and Conspiracy to Engage in Money Laundering. Client was also charged with four counts of Distribution of Cocaine and one count of Money laundering.
Allegations involved client’s alleged use of his home to distribute cocaine. Government’s lengthy investigation involved numerous wiretaps, surveillance, video, pole cams, search warrants, vehicle stops and use of cooperating co-defendants.
Client went to trial with four remaining defendants. After a two-week trial, Judge granted Motion for Acquittal on four of the seven charges. Jury found Client Not Guilty of remaining three charges.
Client charged in Federal Court with two counts of Wire Fraud related to Five SBA EIDL loan applications. The Government alleged the client, a Houston professional, defrauded the Small Business Administration out of over $150,000. The Client faced up to 20 years in prison on each count. The Defense investigated the case and negotiated a deal that included the Government not opposing a probation. The Federal Guideline calculation was for a prison sentence and the Probation Department recommended a prison sentence. Attorney Fickman submitted a 90 page Defense Sentencing Memorandum asking for Probation.
Client was retired professional. Client was accused of being involved in a road rage incident in 1960 Area. Defense put together a 100 page memorandum that demonstrated complainant was actual aggressor.
Client was accused of touching child. Case involved thousands of pages of psychiatric and Child Protective Services records as well as investigations by multiple police departments. After three- year fight, case dismissed.
Client accused of shoving and knocking down family member causing injury. After investigation, charges were dismissed.
Client was accused of knocking disruptive student against the wall. Videotape of incident was obtained. Witnessed located and interviewed. On the day of trial, case was dismissed
Identity theft is a serious crime that involves stealing someone’s “Identifying information” to commit fraud or other illegal activities. “Identifying information” includes:
In Texas, we have a bifurcated trial system. This means that in Texas, there are potentially two parts to a trial. The first part of a trial in Texas is called “The Guilt/ Innocence Phase” of the trial. If a …
Immigration status can have a significant impact on criminal defense cases in Texas. Non-citizens, including legal permanent residents, undocumented immigrants, and visa holders, face unique challenges in the criminal justice system, including the risk of deportation and other immigration consequences. …