Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:58 pm
by BrassMonkey
One of the "managers" told me that one got reassigned last month and they only have one now. ***shrug***
Charles L. Cotton wrote:BrassMonkey wrote:The attorney has been giving them crap for transferring people to his VMail. Normal state nonsense.. They only have one attorney assigned to them you know...
I don't know how many attorneys they have in the CHL area, but it's at least two. One guy is great; the female attorney (who also teaches part the CHL Instructor Course) isn't.
Chas.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:31 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
BrassMonkey wrote:One of the "managers" told me that one got reassigned last month and they only have one now. ***shrug***
Charles L. Cotton wrote:BrassMonkey wrote:The attorney has been giving them crap for transferring people to his VMail. Normal state nonsense.. They only have one attorney assigned to them you know...
I don't know how many attorneys they have in the CHL area, but it's at least two. One guy is great; the female attorney (who also teaches part the CHL Instructor Course) isn't.
Chas.
If it was the woman, then we all need to seen "thank you" notes to the Col.! We're far better off without her!! At the CHL Instructor Course, she spoke gleefully about denying CHLs to people and appeared to look for ways to do it. To make matters worse, her view on the law is . . . interesting. I hate to hear they are short-handed, but her being gone is a blessing.
Chas.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:33 pm
by BrassMonkey
LOL,
If she was that bad, I am certain others would agree with you :-) I only talked a male attorney there about 3 months ago. Never a woman...
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:37 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
BrassMonkey wrote:LOL,
If she was that bad, I am certain others would agree with you :-) I only talked a male attorney there about 3 months ago. Never a woman...
All the CHL Instructors reading this are shaking their head in agreement.
Chas.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:47 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
I have looked at Tex. Gov't Code §411.1711 and I have to admit that I forgot about it passing in 2005. It's provisions were added to one of our bills and . . . well, never mind.
I agree that, as of Sept. 1, 2005, the exclusionary period for deferred adjudications over ten years old begins on the date the deferred order is entered by the court, not at the end of the deferral period. This will effect deferrals for felonies, but it may not have any impact on misdemeanor convictions, unless the person was given a deferral period of 10 years or more. (I've never heard of that long a deferral period for a misdemeanor.) A deferred adjudication is still a conviction, until it is 10 years old when becomes “not a conviction.�
It will be interesting to see if this provision changes DPS' handling of deferred adjudication for misdemeanors. If a person gets a year or two deferred adjudication on a Class A misdemeanor, they would not be eligible for a CHL until 5 years after the deferral period ended, under the procedures DPS has used from the beginning of the CHL program in 1995. Some would argue that the new Section 411.1711 only applies to 10 year old deferred adjudications, which is technically correct. However, prior to 411.1711, the statute was silent on when the exclusionary period began; i.e. on the date the deferral order was signed, or upon successful completion of the deferment period. Although the new Section 411.1711 expressly applies to deferrals at least 10 years old, it could be reasonably argued that its use of the date the deferral order was entered as the trigger for the exclusionary period is an indication of legislative intent as to when all exclusionary periods are to begin. I believe the express language of Section 411.171(4) supports this view, but prior to the 2005 addition of §411.1711, DPS did not interpret 411.171(4) that way.
Chas.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:49 pm
by BrassMonkey
Woohoo, I was right and a lawyer said so, HAHA, Maybe I should think about a career chasing ambulances!!! :-D
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:55 pm
by biblefreak
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have looked at Tex. Gov't Code §411.1711 and I have to admit that I forgot about it passing in 2005. It's provisions were added to one of our bills and . . . well, never mind.
I agree that, as of Sept. 1, 2005, the exclusionary period for deferred adjudications over ten years old begins on the date the deferred order is entered by the court, not at the end of the deferral period. This will effect deferrals for felonies, but it may not have any impact on misdemeanor convictions, unless the person was given a deferral period of 10 years or more. (I've never heard of that long a deferral period for a misdemeanor.) A deferred adjudication is still a conviction, until it is 10 years old when becomes “not a conviction.�
It will be interesting to see if this provision changes DPS' handling of deferred adjudication for misdemeanors. If a person gets a year or two deferred adjudication on a Class A misdemeanor, they would not be eligible for a CHL until 5 years after the deferral period ended, under the procedures DPS has used from the beginning of the CHL program in 1995. Some would argue that the new Section 411.1711 only applies to 10 year old deferred adjudications, which is technically correct. However, prior to 411.1711, the statute was silent on when the exclusionary period began; i.e. on the date the deferral order was signed, or upon successful completion of the deferment period. Although the new Section 411.1711 expressly applies to deferrals at least 10 years old, it could be reasonably argued that its use of the date the deferral order was entered as the trigger for the exclusionary period is an indication of legislative intent as to when all exclusionary periods are to begin. I believe the express language of Section 411.171(4) supports this view, but prior to the 2005 addition of §411.1711, DPS did not interpret 411.171(4) that way.
Chas.
That gives me warm fuzzy feelings..........
edited to fix text placement!!
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:08 pm
by txinvestigator
Charles L. Cotton wrote:BrassMonkey wrote:LOL,
If she was that bad, I am certain others would agree with you :-) I only talked a male attorney there about 3 months ago. Never a woman...
All the CHL Instructors reading this are shaking their head in agreement.
Chas.
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:35 pm
by ElGato
Ah Yes, our resident anti ''I don't like gun's''
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:09 pm
by Crossfire
ElGato wrote:Ah Yes, our resident anti ''I don't like gun's''
Or people who want to legally carry guns...
Revive this thread for updates...
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:03 pm
by biblefreak
I guess I will be the official test bed. Sometime around Aug 7th of this year marked 10 years since the filing was official in 1997. I have different papers that were filed on different days ranging from the 3rd to the 7th so I went with the latest. I took the chl class this weekend Aug 11th. I am waiting for my certified copies from NM and I will submit my paperwork and let you guys know what happens.
On another note (related) the CHL app asks to list any arrests even juvenile, but another paper in the packet only makes mention of the last ten years. Which is it? I am 28 so my juvenile record should be irrelevent should it not?
Thanks.
