Time it takes for License Revocation

[heeler]

First if this post is in the wrong forum I am asking the mods to move it.
Wednesday in the Houston Chronicle there was an article about a school teacher that was finally captured for sexual assault of children and jailed.
Most likely permanently because of the charges which included a car jacking and kidnapping as he was being persued by the police.
The guy was out on a $40,000.00 bond from another charge of sexual assault this past August.
What I also found troubling,if this news report can be believed about this,was that when the police searched his car they found a handgun.
Then the article stated that the guy had a CHL.
If this guy had been jailed for a major felony in August of last year how long does it take generally for the DPS to revoke the license??
I am hoping this is just another example of pitiful reporting that as we all know is getting more common with the MSM.
Anyway after I read the article I could not help but think what the common non carrying public might have thought upon seeing that this degenerate had a CHL.

[Crossfire]

Do you have a link to the article?

[heeler]

Do you have a link to the article?

Unfortunately I do not.
But it was a front page article on Wednesdays Houston Chronicle.

[seamusTX]

Ignore. Sorry.

[Crossfire]

Here it is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea ... 02560.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A former elementary school teacher charged with sexually assaulting two children is expected to appear in court this morning, accused of carjacking a woman in east Houston while trying to flee police.

Timothy Ryan Richert, 38, originally was charged last August with aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child involving a 5-year-old victim. He later was released after posting a $40,000 bail.

On Tuesday, police said, he fled behind a garage apartment in the 4300 block of Polk as officers arrived at his home to take him into custody on four new child sex assault charges. Minutes later, according to court records, a young man who lived in a house behind Richert told police his neighbor tried to kick in his front door.

Investigators said Richert then jumped in to a car with a woman who was returning home. He demanded that she drive him away, she said.

Prosecutors filed a charge of kidnapping after the woman told police she was in fear for her life because of Richert's demeanor. He did not brandish a weapon.

She said Richert jumped out of the car about a mile away and later was apprehended at a Houston motel, officials said. He is being held in the Harris County jail without bail.

Police recovered a pistol from Richert's vehicle. He has a license to carry a concealed weapon.

New sex allegations
The most recent sexual assault charges stem from allegations from a second victim, an 8-year-old girl, who came forward in February while authorities investigated Richert.

Assistant District Attorney Justin Keiter said Richert was charged Tuesday on three counts of continuous sexual assault of a child and one of super-aggravated sexual assault of a child.

Typically, a super-aggravated offense is a combination of a first-degree sexual assault committed on a child under the age of six.

The enhanced charges are products of new laws that carry a minimum of 25 years in prison without chance of parole or diminution of the sentence.

“Even if you've never gotten a traffic ticket before, there's no probation, no deferred adjudication. There's just prison time — 25 years, day for day,” Keiter said.

Richert's attorney did not return calls for comment.

The former Brookline Elementary third-grade teacher resigned from Houston Independent School District in January 2001, days after allegations surfaced that he digitally penetrated a 10-year-old student several times under a blanket during different “movie times.”

He was charged with sexual assault of a child. The charges later were dismissed at the request of the girl.

Richert began working for HISD on Jan. 6, 1997. He was a bilingual teacher for two years, then became a third-grade teacher. State officials revoked Richert's teaching certificate in 2007. It was unclear Wednesday how Richert now makes a living.

[AEA]

I believe that the Houston PD should have taken his CHL when he was first arrested and sent it to DPS. Then it is up to DPS as to how long they take to revoke it.

If this is not the way it works, then it should have been.

[heeler]

And then again it might have already been revoked and we had inaccurate reporting.
Either way it is troubling.

[srothstein]

While I certainly hope it is shoddy reporting, it is also very possible that it is true. In fact, the way the law reads, he might still be legally allowed to have his CHL.

DPS dos not know that a CHL is arrested unless the police agency tells them. And DPS does not communicate internally on things like this unless it is required to by law or they get told to by the police. So, the CHL branch does not get told everyone who is arrested by the ID branch when they process arrest fingerprints or by the criminal history branch when they process records. And there is nothing in the law requiring the arresting police or the detaining jail to notify DPS of the arrest.

And the really good part (or bad, depending on point of view) is that an arrest is not grounds for your license to be suspended or revoked. The law (Government Code section 411.187) says the license may be suspended when you are charged by information or indictment. Being arrested does not constitute being charged in this manner and the DA may decline to prosecute or the Grand Jury may decline to indict. So, when he was arrested last August, we don't know if it was an indictment or not, even though the paper uses the term charged. And since he was not convicted on the previous charges, he may still be legally able to carry his CHL. As you can see, there is a big hole in the system that helps protect us against false accusations (which is why i said good earlier).

Of course, if he was properly indicted last August, then we have the problem of no one telling DPS. The arresting agency did not have formal charges at the time and no one has the responsibility to notify DPS when the indictment is returned. And this is the other big hole in the system, but it could easily be fixed. We need a law added that the prosecuting attorney's officer MUST notify DPS when a person with a CHL is charged by either information or indictment.

[seamusTX]

Only a law enforcement agency can determine whether the man had a CHL, if he does not reveal the fact himself. Reporters make mistakes, but they don't often if they want to keep their job and avoid libel suits.

I know some reporters, and none of them wants to be seen as an irresponsible hack.

In other words, the news story probably says the guy had a CHL because the cops told a reporter.

You can bang your head against the wall trying to parse out GC 411.187 and understand the requirements for a CHL suspension. As Steve says, an arrest alone is not sufficient. It seems like the original charges against the guy were dropped.

- Jim

[WildBill]

We need a law added that the prosecuting attorney's officer MUST notify DPS when a person with a CHL is charged by either information or indictment.

I disagree. Unless the person is charged with a crime involving a firearm, how is the DA to know? If anything, the CHL holder should be required to notify DPS.

[tacticool]

We need a law added that the prosecuting attorney's officer MUST notify DPS when a person with a CHL is charged by either information or indictment.

I disagree. Unless the person is charged with a crime involving a firearm, how is the DA to know? If anything, the CHL holder should be required to notify DPS.

I disagree. If law enforcement wants to notify DPS, there's already a form. Someone (falsely) accused has enough to worry about without being required to be a witness against himself.

[WildBill]

We need a law added that the prosecuting attorney's officer MUST notify DPS when a person with a CHL is charged by either information or indictment.

I disagree. Unless the person is charged with a crime involving a firearm, how is the DA to know? If anything, the CHL holder should be required to notify DPS.

I disagree. If law enforcement wants to notify DPS, there's already a form. Someone (falsely) accused has enough to worry about without being required to be a witness against himself.

This form is for peace officers, not district attorneys.

[seamusTX]

It doesn't really matter. If someone becomes ineligible to have a CHL, the piece of plastic in his wallet is no longer valid. If he continues to carry a weapon with criminal intent, legal niceties are not going to stop him.

- Jim

[WildBill]

It doesn't really matter. If someone becomes ineligible to have a CHL, the piece of plastic in his wallet is no longer valid. If he continues to carry a weapon with criminal intent, legal niceties are not going to stop him. - Jim

If it's not valid, it's just a piece of plastic. It's like having a suspended DL or an expired credit card.

[srothstein]

It doesn't really matter. If someone becomes ineligible to have a CHL, the piece of plastic in his wallet is no longer valid.

I am not as sure of this as you Jim. In some cases, it is certainly true because their legal ability to even possess a firearm is gone. But in the case of a suspension for a DWI charge, for example, I don't think the license automatically becomes invalid. I believe he can legally carry and use the license until DPS suspends it.

As to who has to notify DPS, I put the duty on the DA for a reason. They are the ones who know when the charge is formally returned or not. They also have access to the TLETS system to check if he has a CHL. Since they are supposed to be entering it into TLETS criminal history sections, it would not be too hard for them to add the check and do the notification.

Perhaps an even better idea would be for DPS to unify their computer systems. They could put a cross check in to have the computer check for a CHL and print the notification when a new charge is entered by a DA in the criminal history section. And I have nothing against requiring the CHL to also notify. When a police officer is arrested, he, his chief, and the arresting agency are all required to notify TCLEOSE. But it is easier there because TCLEOSE wants to know about arrests, not formal charges.