Past results are not an indication of what you can expect in your case. All cases are different, and must be analyzed on an
CRIMINAL LAW CASES
State of Texas v. J.L.N.
Client was charged with the misdemeanor offense of Theft of Services. The case was dismissed because we were able to convince the Court that the defendan't rights to a speedy trial were violated.
State of Texas v. A.B.
Client was charged with the felony offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Case dismissed.
State of Texas v. D.L.
Client was charged with the felony offense of continuous violence against the family. This is a serious felony, that carries many years in prison as a possible punishment. An investigator was retained early in the case, and Mr. Steele worked closely with the investigator for several months until the case was reached for trial. An effective trial strategy was developed, and the defense team was ready. A few minutes prior to jury selection, the prosecutor offered the client time served on a lesser charge of misdemeanor assault. The client accepted, and was able to go home.
State of Texas v. S.P.
Client was charged with the first degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. Client was a part owner of a convenience store. A clerk was arrested after it was believed that he had sold K2 (synthetic marihuana) from the store. Mr. Steele's client, being an owner of the store, was also charged. The case was tried to a jury. Mr. Steele's argument that there was insufficient evidence to show that the client knew that K2 was being sold from the store was compelling. After a short deliberation, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.
State of Texas v. J.M.
Client was charged with the misdemeanor offense of DWI. Although there was a breath test, and a video of the field sobriety tests, we did not believe that the State could technically prove that the client was driving while intoxicated. Because of the technical legal issues involved, this is a rare case in which we waived our right to a jury trial, and instead let the Judge decide the issue of guilt or innocence. Common sense, and Mr. Steele's legal arguments prevailed, and the client was found NOT GUILTY.
State of Texas v. A.T.
Client was charged with possession of marihuana after a traffic stop and search of the vehicle in which she was riding. The case was dismissed by the prosecutor at the pre-trial hearing.
State of Texas v. M.M.
Client was charged with Assault / Family Violence after an altercation with his daughter. Although Mr. Steele and the client agreed that the client's actions amounted to nothing more than reasonable discipline of a child, the prosecutor disagreed and filed the charge. From day 1, the defense plan was to accept no deals, and to either get a dismissal, or try the case to a jury. Although several offers were made to the defense, none were accepted and the case was set for trial. The prosecutor dismissed the case about 10 minutes before jury selection.
State of Texas v. M.R.P.
Client was charged with D.W.I. Client was involved in an automobile accident in which he was rear-ended by another driver. The government alleged that the client had been out drinking with the other driver earlier in the day. Mr. Steele did not believe that the government could prove that the client was intoxicated, so the case was set for trial. The case was dismissed by the prosecutor 3 days before the trial was to begin.
State of Texas v. M.W.N .
Client was driving through the County in a vehicle with California License plates. A stop was conducted on the vehicle because it had a license plate cover that partially covered a number on the plate. Through the course of the detention, the officer asked for consent to search. The client refused to give consent. A K-9 unit was called to do a search. The dog alerted on the vehicle, and a search was conducted. The officers found over 19 grams of THC (2nd Degree Felony), less than 1 gram of Amphetamine (State Jail Felony), more than 4 ounces of marihuana (State Jail Felony), and about $17,000.00 in cash, for which the client was charged with money laundering (State Jail Felony). The client was facing up to 20 years in prison, and the possibility of losing all of his money. A motion to suppress was filed because Mr. Steele believed that the officer detained the client too long waiting for the K-9 to arrive, in violation of the rights provided in the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. After a hearing on the motion to suppress, the prosecutor decided to dismiss the felony charges, and the client pled guilty to the misdemeanor offense of possession of marihuana. He received a sentence of 1 day in the county jail, for which the Judge found he had already served. In addition, the client received most of his money back that had been seized by law enforcement after his arrest. Because of the aggressive defense provided by Mr. Steele, an extremely favorable result was achieved for the client.
State of Texas v. L.R.D.
Client charged with DWI. Case Dismissed prior to trial.
State of Texas v. B.J.
Client was charged wtih the second degree felony offense of assault with a deadly weapon / family violence. I was hired early on in the case, and after conducting a thorough investigation, and meeting on several occasions with the District Attorney, the felony charge was dismissed before it was even presented to a grand jury.
State of Texas v. L.M.
Client was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. This is a second
State of Texas v. V.D.
Client was charged with first
State of Texas v. P.B.
Client was charged with the State Jail Felony offense of Theft. Client had a
State of Texas v. D.A.
Client was charged with assault / family violence. The client's ex-wife accused him of assaulting her during an exchange of the children after a weekend visitation with the client. She had the entire incident recorded on a
State of Texas v. B.T.
Client was a nurse, charged with DWI. After the traffic stop, she became very combative and verbally abusive to the officers. Several backup officers were called to the scene. After carefully plotting out the defensive theories, the case was tried to a jury. Each of the officers that were involved with the arrest were present in the courtroom when the jury delivered its verdict of NOT GUILTY.
State of Texas v. G.S.
Client was charged with the felony offense of indecency with a child. The child made an outcry
State of Texas v. T.S.
Client was arrested for Assault / Family Violence. Client and his wife were going through a
State of Texas v. C.A.W.
Client was on probation for the State Jail Felony offense of theft. The prosecutor filed a Motion to Revoke client’s probation, listing 7 different violations alleged to have been committed by the client. After vigorously defending against those allegations, the prosecutor dismissed the Motion to Revoke Probation before a hearing could be held.
State of Texas v. R.W.S.
Client was charged with the misdemeanor offense of
State of Texas v. M.B.
Client was charged with the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance in a drug free zone. After hearing the client’s side of the story regarding the traffic stop and search, and upon reviewing the statements of the officers, it was believed that the officers violated the constitutional rights of the client. A motion to suppress the evidence was filed. After a vigorous presentation of the facts to the Court, the Judge ultimately agreed with the defense that the law enforcement officers had violated the client’s constitutional rights, and the case was dismissed.
FAMILY LAW CASES
In the Interests A.K.F.
Client had been divorced for a few years, and was the joint managing conservator of his young daughter. The child lived primarily with her mother, and the Divorce Decree provided for a residency restriction whereby the mother could not move the child outside of the County. Eventually, the mother remarried and wanted to move to another County. This was a real problem for the dad because he had such a close relationship with his daughter. They saw each other almost daily. During the litigation, it became apparent that perhaps it was in the best interest of the child for the child to live primarily with her father. Eventually the case made it to trial. It was a trial before a jury. After a full week of trial, it took the jury less than 15 minutes to decide that no only should the child's mother NOT remove her from the County, but that it was in the child's best interests that she live primarily with her father. This was a case where a jury of average every day people had the common sense and courage to do the right thing.
In the Matter of the Marriage of R.C. and B.C.; and in the interest of children
I represented the husband in a divorce. There were two biological children of the husband and wife, and one biological daughter of the wife, that the husband had adopted at around the age of 10 or 11. Custody of the children was a hotly contested issue. The wife's attorney called an expert witness, in addition to many other witnesses. The oldest daughter talked to the Judge in chambers, and expressed her wishes to live with her mother. The husband testified, as did some of his family members, but there was no money in the budget for expert witnesses, and the two younger children were too young to talk to the Judge. Much of the testimony and argument had to do with the mother having an affair during the marriage, and having the children around her boyfriend. After a full day hearing before the Judge, non only did my client (the father) receive full custody of his own biological children, but he also received primary custody of the daughter that he adopted.
In the Matter of the Marriage of T.T. and S.T. and in the interest of a child
I was hired to represent the husband / father in a divorce case. The primary issue was the custody of a young child. My client had a bad feeling about some of the people that his wife had been associating with, but just did not have any concrete information on them. I agreed to take the case, and we started our own investigation. The more work we did, the more information we found out, and it was not good. Not only was my client's wife associating with some very undesirable people, but was involved in a lifestyle that was not conducive to raising a young child. After hearing all of the evidence and considering all of the circumstances, the Judge agreed and awarded full custody of the child to my client.
Todd Steele, Attorney at Law
208 E. Anderson Street
Brownwood, Texas 76801
Or use our contact form.
Check our website to learn more about Todd Steele, Attorney at Law and how we can help you with your legal needs.