Skip to main content

Re-Arraignment- Texas Law says 72 hrs for incarcerated person, how can they take 6 weeks?????????????????

Denton, TX |

Texas law states if you are incarcerated you get an arraignment in 72 hours. We have an attorney, not court appt. he has been paid big money up front. It did not concern him when my grandson went up for arraignment and the DA's office didn't have a file. Now it
has take from 10/2 until 11/23, count the weeks yourself, and he just got his arraignment.

We feel his Civil Right have been violated. If you are entitled to an arraignment within 72 hour just because the DA has an inadequate staff should not mean the person has to
set in jail over 6 weeks to get due process, does it? Has he been undermined by his attorney because the attorney hasn't ever said anything?

Attorney Answers 4

Posted

The arraignment in which you refer is the initial arraignment and bond setting done by the magistrate when a person is initially arrested. Chances are this has already happened. There is also another arraignment that has to be done, but there is no 72 hour requirement for that arraignment. I don't know about your son's attorney, but I'll bet he's done what he should have.

Mark as helpful

1 lawyer agrees

Posted

Chapter 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which sets out the rules on arraignments says nothing like this. It says that arraignment can take place no sooner than 2 days after indictment (CCP 26.03). Arraignment, where a felony defendant enters a plea, is different from the initial appearance that you are talking about (Chapter 17 of the CCP). If you are referring to Article 17.033, this applies at arrest and yes, assuming that the State's attorney makes the proper filing, the original setting of bail and appearance before a magistrate can be postponed for up to 72 hours after arrest. You have said that bail has been set previously, so it sounds like 17.033 has been complied with.

The prosecutors are allowed to pressure people to plead guilty, so this is not a civil rights violation (even though we might agree that this is an unfair practice). Your grandson has the absolute right to insist on a trial if he doesn't like what the State is offering. The attorney may not want to provide that evidence to the DA because the DA might not dismiss and will get to see the defense before trial and may not want your grandson talking with the detective because chances are that it will hurt him rather than help him.

These are questions you should direct to his attorney who will be more familiar with the facts of the case. If after discussing this with the attorney, your grandson can fire this attorney and he can hire a new one. You could pursue a grievance against this attorney at that point, but in fairness it doesn't seem to me that based on the facts you have provided that malpractice has been committed.

Disclaimer: This answer is provided as a public service and as a general response to a general question, it is not meant, and should not be relied upon as specific legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.

Mark as helpful

1 lawyer agrees

Posted

Scott and Paul are correct. You disappointment stems from a misunderstanding of the code of criminal procedure. In the future, you should ask your grandson's attorney these questions. Communication can solve most problems during representation.

As for the DA's file- I've posted this before but as defense lawyers we have no responsibility for bringing the DA's file to court. I could care less if they have their files ready in court. I'm there to represent my client, not carry prosecutor paperwork.

Mark as helpful

Posted

While i do not practice in your State i iwll endeavour to answer yoru question from a general practitioners viewpoint.

regardless of the DA having a file or not the Court does at the initial arraignment, the initial appearance before the judge (called an arraignment) is for the purposes of setting bail on a defendant. The Judge may decide to release the defendant without bail, set some bail, or hold the defendant in remand (meaning without any bail option). depending on the case, on the chargehs, and most importantly depending on his previous record (predominantly failures to appear for prior court cases) the judge will render a decision.

On Felony charges there is a second arraignment, when a case is brought up to the superior Court (in Ny the Supreme Court) and at that point the Defendant must be re-arraigned on a jurisdictional issue. there is NO time limit for this arraignement.

Given your facts I would assume he is charged with a felony, the felony is sufficiently serious to merit holding him on a large enough bail that you are not able to make it, or he was not permitted bail at all, and that his case has now been indicted and is proceeding forth under an indictment.

All seems appropriate and all seems correct to me thus far.

I would suggest that the benefits of having a private attorney are communication, enusre you have proper communication with his attorney and are made to understand what is happening... also, remember that the attorne yis HIS attorney, and not yours... and as a result may not allow you to have certain information without properly being authorized to by the Defendant himself.

Mark as helpful

Criminal defense topics

Top tips from attorneys

What others are asking

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer

Browse all legal topics