Friday, January 21, 2011


The mayoral candidates, Martinez, Garza, Camarillo, Ahumada and Cardenas, and anyone else I may have missed, must answer this question - will they call for the immediate dismissal of Municipal Judge Ben Neece, if not, why not?  Also will Sossi and Cabler face discipline for not taking action by recommending the suspension of Neece pending an investigation by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Why are they failing to take the lead on this story?

In the past Ben Neece has been suspended for his alleged misconduct - why in a case wherein the law is black and white, and the court documents are the best evidence, has  Cabler and Sossi not taken action?  Answer - a  few dead residents by drunks is a price which must be paid for dirty politics.

Again to the mayoral candidates - will this stand or will you take a position to protect the people?

The mayoral candidates are Martinez, Garza, Camarillo, Ahumada and Cardenes

What I am going to show is, Ben Neece to protect his personal friend Juan Montoya misrepresented his DWI crimes on his bond.  Under Texas law if you already have a DWI conviction the next one is DWI 2nd.  Whether the 2nd has been brought to trial or not and remains pending the next is DWI 3rd (a felony) and the next is DWI 4th (also a felony)  Ben Neece misrepresented on Montoya's PR Bonds the level of the alleged crimes so as to justify allowing Montoya to get out of jail effectively without posting any bond.

Here is the law.  You should know in July of this year the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal refused to reverse the El Paso Court of Appeals on this issue.  This is the law.  Each DWI whether pending or already having resulted in a conviction counts towards the total number which eventually makes it a felony.

"We respectfully disagree with Judge Johnson. Although Section 49.09 provides that a driving-while-intoxicated offense is a felony " if it is shown on the trial of the offense" that the offender was convicted twice before of driving while intoxicated, we do not believe the plain language of the statute labels the offense a misdemeanor at the time of its commission. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.09(b)(2). Rather, the statute provides that the offense is a felony, and the fact that the prior convictions are not proven until the trial does not alter the nature of the offense. Id.; see also Jones v. State, No. 14-06-00879-CR, 2008 WL 2579897, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] July 1, 2008, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (rejecting similar complaint)."

Here are the facts as found in the bonds issued by Ben Neece, Juan Montoya's personal friend. 

December 11, 2008 - alleged crime DWI - released on PR Bond - meaning get out of jail free card.  This should have been listed as DWI 2nd given a previous conviction.

December 11, 2009 - alleged crime DWI 2nd - released on PR Bond - meaning get out of jail free card.  This under the case law was in fact DWI 3rd and a felony

January 3, 2010 - alleged DWI 2nd - released on PR Bond - meaning a get out of jail free card.  This under the case law was in fact a DWI 4th - and in fact a 3rd in just over a year.   Again a  felony under Texas law.

Here is a good summary of the law in Texas for DWI 3rd - note Montoya should have been given a minimum jail sentence of two years.

"DWI, Third Offense (or greater): Third degree FELONY

Fine - A fine not to exceed $10,000.00.

Jail - Confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (Penitentiary) for a term of not less than 2 years nor more than ten (10) years.

Deep lung air device - Deep lung air devices are generally ordered on all persons convicted of three or more DWI's both as conditions of bond and as conditions of any occupational or provisional licenses that may be awarded after conviction.

Community Service - Texas law mandates that a judge order not less than 160 hours nor more than 600 hours.

Suspension of license - A person convicted of DWI, Second may have their driving privilege suspended for not less than 180 days or more than two (2) years.

Other - A third conviction for DWI indicates a significant problem with alcohol to the Court or jury assessing punishment. Some type of rehabilitative treatment is therefore mandated in punishment if confinement in the penitentiary is to be avoided. In some cases an in-patient, incarceration program (Substance Abuse Felony Probation SAFP) is ordered. This program requires confinement in a State Facility for alcohol rehabilitation. After successful completion of the SAFP program, the person is then released and placed on probation for a term not to exceed ten (10) years. Another popular condition for habitual DWI offenders is a prescription for a drug named "Antabuse". This drug will make a person violently ill if any alcohol is consumed. The alcohol can be contained in mouthwash or marinated food and will still have the same effect on the user. If a person has any type of liver problems, this drug can cause liver failure and death.

Texas law does not provide for any increased punishment after DWI, third offense. If a person presents a DWI, fourth offense or beyond, the typical punishment is confinement in the penitentiary from two (2) to ten (10) years without probation being granted. In some cases SAFP may be granted upon proper request and showing that it is appropriate.

Intoxication Assault

Third degree Felony "A person commits an offense if the person, by accident or mistake, while operating a .... motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, by reason of that intoxication causes serious bodily injury to another" {Texas Penal Code §49.07}. " 'Serious Bodily Injury' means injury that creates a substantial risk of death or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ".

Fine - A fine not to exceed $10,000.00.

Jail - Confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (Penitentiary) for a term of not less than 2 year nor more than ten (10) years.

Community Service - Texas law mandates that a judge order not less than 160 hours nor more than 600 hours."

Where is Marc Sossi, and Charlie Cabler on this mess?   - "until we have body bags we do not give a shit - leave Ben Neece alone."



BobbyWC said...

if you repost your statement without the drug use allegation I will post - unless there is a conviction for drug use the BV reejcts all comments alleging drug use.

Otherwise your comment is right on the money

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

It says in your linked story he was arrested for possession ??? Im applying DWI standards(commission not conviction) It's cool...I can respect your standards. Besides, there is really nothing I could post that would shed any additional light upon Neece's true colors.

BobbyWC said...

I hope you can see you can say certain things which are 100% factually true - and still get your message out

I think the original Rendon lawsuit proves his limited legal skills

Also his malpractice in his representation of Joe Rubio by failing to take the proper remedy from the trial court judgment against Rubio also proves his lack of legal skills

- see how I did it without conclusory statements

And thanks for respecting my standards

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

As referenced by your two examples,I will leave it at this. Ben Neece is an embarrassment to the legal profession.

BobbyWC said...

I cannot post statements claiming what Ben neece did is criminal. If you have a statute which makes it a crime for a judge to wrongly state the criminal act alleged in the bond for the benefit of a friend I will research it and decide if it applies to these facts.

This is certainly something Marc Sossi should be investigating - but since he is suing Montoya for Colunga it will appear as retaliation

This is why you do not have a city attorney also practing law in the community. these conflicts are inevitable

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

July of this year hasn't happened yet. I assume you mean July 2010. The events you listed all are prior to last July. It had not been ruled on by the Texas criminal Supreme Court. Was there ever a case coming out of the 13th court of appeals that was similar to the El Paso ruling? Being that the El Paso Appeals Court had a ruling, it is likely our local courts agreed with El Paso's interpretation. Either way, I could see how an alleged DWI is different from a convicted DWI. One should be counted while the other shouldn't, but then I'm not a putrid Republican Supreme Court Justice.