Criminal Defense Attorney Carl Haggard is an Ex-Chief District Prosecutor and has over 30 years of verifiable winning experience helping people in Houston fight against DWI / DUI charges. If you or a loved one has been charged with Driving While Intoxicated call Carl at (832) 328-0600 or use the short email form for a free confidential consultation about your case. We are ready to fight for you!
Recent Driving While Intoxicated Case Results in Houston
DWI 1st – Blood Draw
Case No. 21796570 – Crystal F.
DISMISSED Aug. 2nd, 2018
Crystal had several drinks at a bar celebrating her husband’s birthday. On the way home she was stopped and failed the eye test and the breath test. Defendant’s husband was in the passenger seat. Police said get out and I’ll let you go. Police grabbed wife’s purse. Defendant said “hold on where you going with the purse” and defendant grabbed it and said “leave it with me.” Police arrested defendant – “all right you’re going to jail”. Crystal was taken to a local hospital and blood drawn. Blood was later drawn but by that time her Blood Alcohol Level had dropped slightly below the legal limit. We successfully fought State’s attempted use of extrapolation on the Blood Draw (where State tries to prove at the time of the stop her BAC levels were over the limit) to get her DWI dismissed.
DWI 1st – Failed All FST’s
Case No. 2161473 – Elvis B.
Elvis had several beers and shots with friends and passed out at a light on the way home. He failed all clues on all sobriety tests, was incoherent and refused the breath test. A blood warrant was obtained and the draw came back close to the limit. We argued our defenses and prevented the DA’s from moving forward with a prosecution by extrapolation.
DWI 1st – Blood Draw
Case No. 1906096 – Baker B.
Baker had several beers & failed the Field Sobriety Test. His blood was drawn according to DWI blood draw protocols. When the results came in under the legal limit we argued for an immediate Dismissal but the State, wanting to prosecute on retrograde extrapolation, strung us along for several months before we convinced them their retrograde extrapolation prosecution strategy was weak & won our Dismissal.
Case No. 1809408 – Edgar R.
Edgar was on PCS felony probation when charged with a DWI. He admitted to drinking and took the breath test about an hour after being stopped, blowing slightly under the limit. [In a previous hearing, Edgar had his probation revoked for admitting to the DWI arresting officer he’d had alcohol – a violation of his probation.] Attorneys for the prosecution were preparing to re-file the DWI after Edgar had served his felony sentence. We successfully fought this by requesting a Speedy Trial under the Speedy Trial Act and prepared our DWI case, motions, and witnesses for trial. The State had experts lined up to testify regarding retrograde extrapolation – their star prosecutorial strategy – and the HGN (eye) and other field sobriety tests they alleged he failed. Due to a limited budget, Edgar’s family declined to retain the experts we recommended to testify at trial to debunk State’s experts on retrograde extrapolation and the field sobriety test. We were prepared and confident nevertheless with our research, defenses and legal arguments as well as several witnesses.
DWI – BT FAILURE
Case No. 1622875 – Thomas T.
This was the first of the two DWI Dismissals we won for Thomas in four months. Tom was discovered by police passed out in his vehicle with the engine running. He was obviously intoxicated and failed the breath and sobriety tests. Our defense revolved not around the issue of intoxication but whether police could wheel him – prove he had been driving beyond a reasonable doubt. Through a careful reconstruction of Thomas’ timeline that evening, involving friends and several restaurant and club visits as well as a convoluted transporting of various people to various vehicles, including sworn witness testimony and cell phone records to verify who called whom and when we were able to knock this one out just on the eve of trial.
Case No. 1565317 – T. T., M.D.
Dr. T. was a physician charged with DWI after having some drinks over dinner with a colleague; his detailed and very credible testimony as a drinking witness helped us in the case. Dr. T. refused the breath test but did perform the field sobriety tests – although police failed to video the first of the two scene tests. Dr. T. admitted to police to having drinks with dinner, which amounts were corroborated in the testimony of the doctor witness. We argued that the evidence – based on the reason for the stop, the videos, and the amount of alcohol consumed was not indicative of intoxication. In particular we presented a detailed brief on Dr. T’s video after evaluating it with a fine-toothed comb and it all added up to a Dismissal.
DWI – BREATH TEST .12
Case No. 1524140 – Mike M.
We had several factors in our favor in this case and only one against us – the breath test: Several police cruisers arrived on the scene after Mike was initially stopped for tailgating a police officer. We contested this as the officer was behind Mike, not the other way around. He performed well on both of his sobriety videos but blew a .12 on the breath test – although this was approximately 2 hours after being stopped [for “tailgating”]. We had several drinking witnesses lined up to testify at trial that Mike consumed food with his alcohol and moreover was quite sober when leaving the club. We were ready to try this case when the State developed one problem in proving the validity of the failed breath test – and declined to proceed further against us.
I blew a .12 and most lawyers advised me to plead guilty but Carl Haggard got my case dismissed in trial. From the first time I spoke to him after researching on whom to defend me, Mr. Haggard insisted that I fight the case and he fought it all the way from day one.
— Mike M.
Case No. 1560110 – Sheila G.
Being stopped for going the wrong way on a one-way street + at night + admitting to drinking, at a Christmas party + failing the HGN [eye] test = a DWI arrest. The only positive thing Sharon had going for her case was she refused the breath test. Our defenses included contesting the reason for the stop as not indicative of intoxication: Our scene photos showed the intersection was under construction; we further argued it was confusing and that intoxication played no role in the wrong turn.
DWI WHILE ON PROBATION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT
Case No. 1582060 – Enrique G.
Enrique was on probation for Sexual Assault when charged with DWI. His judge had told him, “If I see you in my court for any law violations while on probation, you’re going up.” Enrique was actually the passenger in this unusual case. His cousin, whom he resembled, was the driver in this hit-and-run accident. Both were wearing white sweaters. Ironically, it was Enrique who convinced his cousin to return to the scene. By the time police arrived, his cousin had taken off his sweater. Of course, Complainant told police, “The driver was wearing a white sweater” so they grabbed Enrique who, while not driving, had indeed drunk four beers at home – so he was still in violation of his probation conditions. Not surprisingly he performed poorly on the sobriety test. After interviewing several attorneys, Enrique went with The Haggard Law Firm stating that he felt HFL was the most aggressive, committed to success, and had the best success record of those he spoke with. We prepared our defenses, evidence and witnesses. In two slam-dunk hearings, we got Enrique’s probation reinstated – despite his clear law violation and the judge’s threat – and his DWI dismissed.
DWI – BT Failure
Case No. 1551096 – Matthew M.
This young entrepreneur in a three-piece suit was stopped after leaving Pappasitos. He admitted to several Long Island teas and blew twice – failing both times. Police noted slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, poor balance, and the odor of alcohol. Several missed clues and improper turns rendered his sobriety test videos less than stellar. Nevertheless we prepared for Trial, subpoenaing the CMI Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test records log and all supporting data on the machine, it’s maintenance, checks and operator. Among other things, these records helped us in our extrapolation defense. We won our Dismissal during Pre-Trial Motions.
The minute he walked into the courtroom I could tell the District Attorneys, the Judge, and the other lawyers respected him. He was worth every penny.
— Matthew M.
DWI – .17 BT Failure
Case No. 1489950 – Ali R.
Although we had our share of problems to overcome in this case, bigger problems with the State’s case, which Mr. Haggard aggressively exploited, helped him to hammer home this pre-Trial Dismissal: On being stopped, Ali immediately ran afoul of the officer by failing to reveal he had a loaded gun and by stating he had had nothing to drink – although he blew a .17 on the Breath Test. We subpoenaed the chemical analysis records as well as extensive information from the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 5000 and from DPS to help us contest the breat test readings. Due to a shift change, the officer that made the arrest was different from the officer that saw him behind the wheel. Finally, evidence of an old knee injury [Ali is an ex-Marine] helped combat some of the perceived clues to intoxication on the video.
DWI – BLEW .15
Case No. 1554246 – Troy H.
REDUCED TO CLASS C MISDEMEANOR PUBLIC INTOXICATION
Although Troy was intoxicated, we fought hard to prove that the evidence was insufficient that he was ever seen driving by police, that he had been driving or that he intended to drive when found, by police, passed out behind the wheel in a public place with the motor running and when, upon being awakened, he attempted several times to put his truck in gear. This case was set for Jury Trial but Troy, who had a lengthy criminal history, elected to take Prosecutors’ offer of a Class C Public Intoxication on the date of trial.
Case No. 1513036 – Marco C.
Marco was stopped by Pasadena police for going twice the speed limit. His passenger was arrested for Public Intoxication. Marco had had several beers but Mr. Haggard was able to refute the prosecutors’ claims that his video indicated intoxication and, despite Marco’s prior State Jail felony record, obtain a Dismissal.
Case No. 1409177 – Jeremy H.
JURY TRIAL VERDICT: NOT GUILTY
[Jeremy had a prior DWI reduced to a P.I.] After fishing all day with a friend they split a 60 ounce pitcher of beer. While driving home, Jeremy was stopped for being “all over the road” and hitting a curb. He refused the Breath Test but performed the Field Sobriety Tests twice. There were several errors on the scene and station videos, both conducted by sergeants, who had ordered him to remove his flip flops. Problems caused by being barefoot on a rocky road, and other performance problems were overcome by Mr. Haggard’s utilization of an expert witness who disputed the manner in which the sergeant administered the HGN eye exam and refuted the reliability of the field tests. [Note: Although Mr. Haggard knows police protocols in administering the FST, and understands why these tests are unreliable, a defense attorney cannot testify as an expert; thus an independent expert is needed to refute these tests at trial.] We presented medical records showing Jeremy is legally blind in one eye and proved this did not affect his driving but could result in a false positive on the HGN eye exam. This case was tried twice; the first result was a 3 to 3 tie. Jeremy and Mr. Haggard refused to plead and retrenched for Trial No. 2. Victory was sweet.
Mr. Haggard not only worked hard to insure my freedom on this DWI case; he helped me through it emotionally as well. He tried this case twice and both times totally blew me away with how he picked apart the testimony of the Prosecution’s and the State’s own witnesses, two police sergeants. I would recommend him to my closest friends. He went the extra mile for me and it definitely paid off.
Mr. Haggard was very detailed with his examinations and did a great job with his research. We used an expert witness that was also helpful. The two policemen that testified against my son were both sergeants but Mr. Haggard did a great job cross-examining them. He made it clear to the Jury the areas where they weren’t being consistent. I was impressed by that.
— Client’s Mother
Case No. 1418712 – Zayde R.
DISMISSED DURING TRIAL
Zayde was stopped by Deer Park police after a concerned citizen reported he was weaving all over the road. The arresting officer further testified during trial the car had been weaving and crossed the center stripe. Zayde admitted to several beers at a club with friends, who served as drinking witnesses for the trial. He performed poorly on the State Field Sobriety Test; Mr. Haggard’s defense was in part Zayde’s large size and awkwardness (he plays college football), his customary manner of speech when sober, several documented ankle surgeries and an expert to testify on causes of our client’s poor performance other than intoxication. Several cruisers and officers and two police jurisdictions were involved in Zayde’s arrest. This led to confusion among the officers and resultant errors in the Offense Report all of which Mr. Haggard uncovered and exploited during trial. Mr. Haggard was brilliant in his strategy and cross-examination, successfully objecting to prosecutors’ veiled efforts to introduce hearsay evidence. With a Trial Notebook ready for any eventuality, he was preparing to file several Motions, including a Motion to Suppress after his cross-examination, when the prosecution admitted defeat and moved to dismiss the case.
Mr. Haggard worked very hard for me and prepared me and my witnesses to testify. He also had an expert witness [on the Field Sobriety Test] who helped my case tremendously. Mr. Haggard was always one step ahead of the prosecution and got my case dismissed in the middle of the trial during his cross-examination. He made a very negative time in my life a lot easier. This outcome helped my personal life as well – this case happened at the same time I was preparing to apply to medical school. Due to this Dismissal of my DWI, Mr. Haggard will now be able to get a prior case sealed. He is also in the process of expunging this DWI. Now with the prior case sealed and the DWI Dismissal my record will be clean for my medical school application.
— Zayde R.
I just want to thank everyone in Mr. Haggard’s firm that assisted in Zayde’s case. I know it was a lot of work. It saved Zayde’s future and I just appreciate it so much! My son is a pre-med, dean’s list, university student. Having a DWI on his record would greatly reduce his chance of acceptance into medical school. I looked carefully through the letters that came in the mail from attorneys wanting to represent him. I chose Mr. Haggard because he was a former Chief Prosecutor, he had testimonial letters from former clients and he was a Christian. Mr. Haggard proved to be the best possible choice. He prepared my son’s case leaving no stone unturned. Because of his experience, knowledge of the law and extensive preparation he was prepared at trial for any twist or prosecution mistake. I felt confident that Mr. Haggard was ready and able to handle the case at the highest level. I believe with all my heart that he cared about my son and the outcome of the case as if he were a relative. When the case was dismissed in a trial by jury, Mr. Haggard and his office staff were sincerely as happy as my son and I because of the impact on my son’s future. I highly recommend Mr. Haggard for any case. He and his staff put their hearts in it and truly care. I believe you can’t get better representation anywhere.
— Client’s Mother
Case No. 1300825 – Barry C.
JURY TRIAL VERDICT: NOT GUILTY
Our client was stopped by the Bellaire Police for speeding at 2:00 a.m. He had been at a bar and admitted to drinking there and also at home prior to going to the bar. He refused the breath test but did submit twice to the field sobriety tests. Part of his problem in performing some of the tests had to do with his herniated disk. Mr. Haggard used medical testimony and records, among other tactics, to convince the jury our client was “Not Guilty” of this DWI charge.
Case No. [Expunged by Mr. Haggard] – Saleem R.
JURY TRIAL VERDICT: NOT GUILTY
Mr. Haggard answered all my questions & addressed all of my concerns… & represented me in a professional manner. He understands the courts & works well within the system to provide excellent representation. He told me before he took the case how much it will cost & only charged me that amount. His office staff was very professional & treated me with respect. Mr. Haggard is honest and hard working. I highly recommend him.
— Saleem R.
Case No. [Expunged by Mr. Haggard.] – Uche M.
JURY TRIAL VERDICT: NOT GUILTY
Our client was arrested for attempting to go the wrong way on a one-way street in downtown Houston after leaving a party. Client had 2 civilian witnesses for sobriety vs. 2 police officers for intoxication. Due to Mr. Haggard’s presentation and cross-examination, the Jury believed the citizens over the police.
Mr. Haggard worked very hard on my case. I was falsely accused and the Jury found me not guilty. Mr. Haggard will fight for your best interest; he knows the law.
— Uche M.
Case No. 1194892 – David F.
JURY TRIAL VERDICT: NOT GUILTY
Our client had a misdemeanor jail record and, on Mr. Haggard’s recommendation, did not testify. We had one sobriety witness whose testimony revealed, in the middle of trial, that our client had lied to the police officer regarding the amount he had had to drink. Nevertheless, Mr. Haggard was able to convince a well-chosen jury our client was not intoxicated.
Mr. Haggard handled my case with sheer excellence. I don’t think anyone could have handled my case any better. The time and preparation he put into my case really showed me how much he cares for his clients. I would recommend him to anyone who is in need of a good lawyer.
— David F.
Case No. 1432595 – Chris G.
Our client was an ex-con who was stopped in the early morning hours for driving with no headlamps. The officer stated he smelled alcohol on our client’s breath and our client admitted to having had alcohol earlier. He also had drinking witnesses who could vouch for him. He refused the breath test and field sobriety test. Lack of sufficient evidence of intoxication among other defenses helped Mr. Haggard obtain a Dismissal.
Case No. 1399782 – Holly M.
Our client was pulled over by Humble P.D. at 2:30 a.m. after leaving the club where she worked as a dancer. She refused the breath test but did not perform well on the Field Sobriety Test due more to the shoes she was wearing than the several drinks she had consumed. We had several witnesses as to what, how much, and when she drank as well as how she appeared on leaving. Further, the club valet’s policy of not giving the keys to an intoxicated person was additional evidence in our favor.
Case No. 1366033 – Luis P.
Stopped in the early morning hours for speeding, our client admitted to several drinks at dinner; later he also had more to drink at a bar. He had a drinking witness, which Mr. Haggard was able to use to our client’s advantage. On our client’s initial call to our office, he told us “probation is not an option here”.
I was very nervous at first, but Mr. Haggard calmed me down and told me he would work as hard as he could to get this case dismissed. The prosecutors seemed to also respect Mr. Haggard’s ability and reputation and listened to his presentation. I praise Mr. Haggard and I would recommend him to anybody who needs a lawyer.
— Luis P.
Case No. 1330466 – Deborah B.
Our client was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the road after leaving a bar and police stated she “stank of alcohol”. She did poorly on the Field Sobriety Test but this was primarily due to nervousness which Mr. Haggard was able to prove sufficiently to obtain a Dismissal.
Case No. 1307232 – John M.
Our client admitted to police he had been drinking. Although he was very tired, not having slept in 3 days, he was not intoxicated and felt that any errors on his field sobriety test were due to fatigue, which Mr. Haggard was able to prove. Our client was in school to become a commercial airline pilot so a conviction was out of the question. He hired Mr. Haggard to go all the way to trial if necessary but Mr. Haggard was able to obtain a Dismissal prior to the risk of Trial.