Blog
CHILD PREDATORS AND PUNISHMENT
Disparate Treatment of Sex Offenders, Punishment and Public Policy
Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
“Child predator” is now among the two worst words in the American lexicon. A 42-year-old Houston resident, we will call him John Doe, recently learned as much. According to allegations by law enforcement, the Magnolia High School institutional aide decided last October to look up former students on Facebook from high schools where he had worked.
Law enforcement authorities believe it started out as an innocent venture. But it did not remain innocent. A 16-year-old boy responded to John Doe’s query. John Doe had known the teenager at Westwood High School in the Round Rock school district between 2004 and 2007. Austin Detective Joel Pridgeon said the communications between the school employee and student quickly escalated from innocent online chatting to sexual solicitation.
The Houston Chronicle report about the episode did not disclose how law enforcement got involved in the case. The newspaper briefly reported that John Doe confessed when he was confronted by Pridgeon in Houston. The detective then returned to Austin where he secured a warrant charging John Doe with online solicitation of a minor. The school employee could have been charged under either of the two Texas solicitation of a minor statutes.
First, Texas Penal Code Article 33.021 defines “online solicitation of a minor”:
(a) In this section:
(1) “Minor” means:
(A) an individual who represents himself or herself to be younger than 17 years of age; or
(B) an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 17 years of age.
(2) “Sexual contact,” “sexual intercourse,” and “deviate sexual intercourse” have the meanings assigned by Section 21.01.
(3) “Sexually explicit” means any communication, language, or material, including a photographic or video image, that relates to or describes sexual conduct, as defined by Section 43.25.
(b) A person who is 17 years of age or older commits an offense if, with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, intentionally:
(1) communicates in a sexually explicit manner with a minor; or
(2) distributes sexually explicit material to a minor.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, knowingly solicits a minor to meet another person, including the actor, with the intent that the minor will engage in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with the actor or another person.
(d) It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection (c) that:
(1) the meeting did not occur;
(2) the actor did not intend for the meeting to occur; or
(3) the actor was engaged in a fantasy at the time of commission of the offense.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that at the time conduct described by Subsection (b) or (c) was committed:
(1) the actor was married to the minor; or
(2) the actor was not more than three years older than the minor and the minor consented to the conduct.
(f) An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree, except that the offense is a felony of the second degree if the minor is younger than 14 years of age or is an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 14 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. An offense under Subsection (c) is a felony of the second degree.
(g) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under thissection, the otherlaw, or both.
This statute was enacted by the Legislature in 2005. Two years later the Legislature increased the penalty for sexually explicit online communication with a minor who is 14-16 years old from a state jail felony to a third degree felony, and increased the penalty for online sexual solicitation of a minor who is 14-16 years old from a third degree felony to a second degree felony.
The second solicitation of a minor statute in the Texas Penal Code is entitled “Criminal Solicitation of a Minor” under Article 15.031. It provides:
a person commits an offense if, with intent that an offense listed by
Section 3g(a)(1), Article 42.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, be committed, the person requests, commands, or attempts to induce a minor to engage in specific conduct that, under the circumstances surrounding the actor’s conduct as the actor believes them to be, would constitute an offense listed by Section 3g(a)(1), Article 42.12, or make the minor a party to the commission of an offense listed by Section 3g(a)(1), Article 42.12.
(b) A person commits an offense if, with intent that an offense under Section 21.02, 21.11, 22.011, 22.021, or 43.25 be committed, the person by any means requests, commands, or attempts to induce a minor or another whom the person believes to be a minor to engage in specific conduct that, under the circumstances surrounding the actor’s conduct as the actor believes them to be, would constitute an offense under one of those sections or would make the minor or other believed by the person to be a minor a party to the commission of an offense under one of those sections.
(c) A person may not be convicted under this section on the uncorroborated testimony of the minor allegedly solicited unless the solicitation is made under circumstances h6ly corroborative of both the solicitation itself and the actor’s intent that the minor act on the solicitation.
(d) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the minor solicited is not criminally responsible for the offense solicited;
(2) the minor solicited has been acquitted, has not been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense or of a different type or class of offense, or is immune from prosecution;
(3) the actor belongs to a class of persons that by definition of the offense solicited is legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity; or
(4) the offense solicited was actually committed.
(e) An offense under this section is one category lower than the solicited offense.
(f) In this section, “minor” means an individual younger than 17 years of age.
Recent media reports have disclosed that several Texas school districts have received federal funds to track, detect, and arrest adults like John Doe who engage in sexually explicit chats with students and minors online or to solicit them to engage in specific sexual activity. These adults are considered by the criminal justice system and the general public at large as dangerous “child predators.”
But the way child predators are charged by Texas prosecutors and ultimately punished by judges and juries demonstrate that there is no rational public policy for dealing with these offenders. We have reviewed the facts and punishments in seven cases decided by the various Texas courts of appeals which brought us to this conclusion.
The following cases were prosecuted under § 33.021. They illustrate how law enforcement troll the Internet trying to ensnare child predators searching the Internet for underage sex. The first case involves Joel Douglas Newberry whose conviction by a jury and sentence of ten years were upheld on February 17, 2006 by the Fifth District Court of Appeals sitting in Dallas. See: Newberry v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 1360 (Tex.App.-Dallas, Feb. 17, 2006). The appeals court provided the background facts of the case:
“Bruce Marshall, a detective with the Garland Police Department, testified he worked on internet crimes against children. As part of his duties, Marshall assumed the role of a child on the internet. Marshall would select a name and set up a profile of fictitious personal information, including a photograph of the ‘child.’ Marshall’s first contact from appellant came via instant message on January 10, 2002. Appellant used the screen name ‘Hydroponicgreen,’ and Marshall was using the name ‘MandyTX.’ The user profile for ‘MandyTX’ indicated she was a fourteen-year-old girl from Garland, Texas. Marshall also created a profile for ‘Texas14Chica,’ a fourteen-year-old girl named Julie Montez.
”As ‘Texas14Chica,’ Marshall was contacted by appellant on October 21, 2002. In the exchange that followed, appellant asked ‘Texas14Chica’ if she wanted to ‘hook up,’ asked if anyone else was home, and said he would ‘just like to fuck’ and ‘eat you out.’ ‘Texas14Chica’ said she ‘didn’t need no babies’ and ‘14 is way 2 young 2 b a mommy.’ Appellant repeatedly asked ‘Texas14Chica’ if she wanted ‘this’ and told her he did not want to get her in trouble. ‘Texas14Chica’ said she did not want her mom to find out, and appellant replied that he could go to jail if her mom found out. ‘Texas14Chica’ replied that she would be sent to her grandmother in California if her mom found out, and appellant replied that was ‘better than jail.’ Appellant wrote that he used protection and did not ‘have anything.’ ‘Texas14Chica’ gave appellant directions to an apartment in Garland and said she would meet him by the mailboxes. ‘Texas14Chica’ gave appellant a phone number to call which rang a phone in Marshall’s office. Marshall had a telephone voice transformer attached to the phone that allowed him to alter his voice and sound like a young girl. Appellant said he had ‘protection’ and would ‘bring them.’
”Appellant went to the apartment complex and called ‘Texas14Chica’ and asked if she was by the mailboxes. ‘Texas14Chica’ told appellant she would come out to meet him. Marshall communicated with police officers near the apartments, and they arrested appellant. After appellant was arrested, a search revealed a condom in appellant’s pocket and a cell phone in his truck that showed it had been used to call Marshall.” Id., at Lexis 2-3.
The second § 33.021 case also came out of the Fifth District Court of Appeals rendered on August 21, 2008 which upheld his conviction by a jury and 10-year sentence. See: Gurwell v. State, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6329 (Tex.App.-Dallas, Aug. 21, 2008). The background facts of the case are:
“The events giving rise to this charge began in August 2006 when appellant contacted a girl named ‘Emma’ through her MySpace and Yahoo! Accounts. Appellant concedes he believed Emma was a fourteen-year-old girl. Emma was actually a persona created by Collin County Sheriff’s deputy Scotty Morrison. Appellant and Emma chatted via an instant messenger system. Appellant used the screen name ‘rygee253’ and Emma used the screen name ‘tennisgirl0893.’ Over time, the chatting escalated into explicit sexual conversation. The online chat log was admitted into evidence at trial as State’s Exhibit no. 1. Eventually ‘rygee253’ and ‘tennisgirl0893’ agreed to meet at a nearby park. When appellant went to the park, he was arrested by Morrison. Upon being arrested, appellant said he was sorry and that he never intended to have sex with Emma.” Id., at Lexis 2.
While the next two cases deal with online child predators, the defendants were prosecuted under different statutes. The first case was decided by the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting in El Paso, on October 23, 2008, upholding a six-year sentence a $2500 fine imposed on Mario Martinez, Jr. a non-negotiated guilty plea. See: Martinez v. State, 2008 Tex.App. LEXIS 8097 (Tex.App-El Paso, Oct. 23, 2008). The appeals court stated the facts of the case as follows:
“After Appellant entered his plea of guilty, the State and Appellant introduced evidence relevant to guilt. Appellant met ‘Macie,’ whom he believed to be a fifteen year-old girl from Garland, Texas, in an online chat room. ‘Macie’ was actually Bruce Steven Marshall, a Garland Police detective assigned to work internet crimes against children. Appellant told ‘Macie’ that he was nineteen years old, but he was actually thirty-one.
”Appellant chatted with ‘Macie’ online numerous times between April 26, 2005 and June 23, 2005. Over the course of their correspondence, Appellant turned the conversations sexual and sent her e-mails containing pictures of his penis. During that period, she referred to her age fifteen times and gave Appellant seven ‘outs,’ or opportunities to cut off contact and get away from the situation. Appellant solicited ‘Macie’ for sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse a total of twenty-eight times. Appellant never took any of the outs; he asked if she was a police officer.
”When Appellant arrived to meet ‘Macie’ with the purpose of engaging in sexual acts, Marshall arrested and interviewed him. Appellant brought two boxes of condoms to the meeting; each box contained three condoms. Appellant told Marshall that he knew ‘Macie’ was fifteen and unhappiness with his wife’s weight drove him to seek sex online. Appellant also told Marshall that he sought out children rather than adults because ‘kids were more fun to talk to.’ Police found evidence of other chats with minors on Appellant’s computer. In two other conversations, Appellant attempted to solicit sex from two girls, one who claimed to be fourteen and one who said she was sixteen. These conversations occurred on June 22, 2005, the same day Appellant arranged to meet ‘Macie’ and the day before his arrest.
”According to Marshall, Appellant was not a good candidate for probation because he repeatedly attempted to solicit sex from underage girls. Marshall also found Appellant’s willingness to expose himself online to be unusual. Dr. William Carter, a psychologist, completed a psychological profile of Appellant to determine whether he posed any future risk as a sexual offender. In Dr. Carter’s opinion, Appellant would make a good candidate for probation.” Id., at Lexis 2-3.
Joe Alan Cook was not prosecuted under § 15.031. The prosecutor chose to charge him with the more serious offense of attempted aggravated sexual assault of a child under § 15.01 (attempt) and 22.021 (aggravated sexual assault). Cook’s case was decided by the Sixth District Court of Appeals, sitting in Texarkana, on June 6, 2008, upholding a 95-year term enhanced by two prior convictions. See: Cook v. State, 256 S.W.3d 846 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008).
“The evidence at trial revealed that, on January 23, 2006, Cook, using the user name, ‘joe_cook_2006,’ entered an internet chat room titled ‘Romance Texas.’ He initiated an online conversation with ‘Kacy’ who had entered the chat room. Cook began the conversation by stating, ‘Hi, I am Joe in Longview. how are you?’ Kacy responded, ‘im fine. 13f.’ Cook asked, ‘13?’ Kacy answered, ‘yeah. thatz all. still wanna chat?’ Cook replied, ‘wow. do you attend Pine Tree then?’ Kacy stated, ‘yup. u knew,’ and Cook replied, ‘from your name, yes.’ Unknown to Cook, ‘Kacy’ who was chatting with him, was actually Sergeant Michelle Stern, an investigator with the Texas Attorney General’s Office who was investigating child exploitation crimes over the internet. The online profile of Kacy that Stern set up represented that Kacy lived in Longview and was a single female whose interests were “music and friends.”
”After several minutes of chatting, Cook moved the conversation to sexual matters. He asked Kacy, ‘so, how personal may I get?’ Eventually, Cook began an online conversation in which he described in graphic detail the sexual acts he would like to do with Kacy. Ultimately, Cook asked Kacy, ‘would you want to get together?’ Kacy answered, ‘r u 4 real?’ and expressed concern that she would get in trouble. In the same conversation, Cook asked if Kacy would like to see his sexual organ. Kacy answered, ‘I have never done it with ne one.’ Cook sent Kacy an image of his sexual organ. In subsequent conversations online, Cook set up a meeting with Kacy where they could ‘make love.’ Kacy said they could meet at the corner of the school, which she reminded him was ‘pine tree jr high.’ During these conversations, Cook described in graphic terms how he would have sexual relations with Kacy, who responded with ‘it will b my first.’ In a conversation finalizing plans for their meeting, Kacy stated, ‘r u sure it wont bug u that im 13?’ Cook answered by saying that it would be better if she were older, but he knew she wanted to do it and an older man should do it so it would not hurt. Kacy also stated to Cook, ‘remember I cant get pg.’ Cook responded, ‘I know, won’t happen, i would get in big trouble, prison for a long time.’ Kacy then asked why, and Cook said, ‘you are under 16 . . . that is against the law.’ Eventually, Cook and Kacy agreed to meet at a place Kacy represented to be where she lived. Cook told her that because his truck had broken down, he would go to her apartment on his bicycle.
”On the morning of February 1, 2006, at about 9:00 a.m., Cook arrived by bicycle at what he believed was where Kacy lived. When he knocked on the door, he was placed under arrest. He had in his possession a pair of underwear, various toiletries, a camera, a pocketknife, a ‘bear candle,’ a box of condoms, and lubricating jelly.” Id., at 847.
The four child “victims” in each of these four cases were actually police actors—three of whom presented themselves as fourteen-year-old girls and the fourth as a thirteen-year-old girl. Accepting the background facts outlined by the courts as true, each adult predator was aggressive in his attempts to meet and have sex with perceived teenaged victims.
Why, then, were their sentences so different?
Newberry and Gurwell was given identical ten-year sentences under § 33.021 while Martinez was given a six-year term under § 15.021 following a guilty plea. Because he had two unspecified prior convictions, Cook was given an enhanced 95-year term. The disparity in the sentences does not reveal any legitimate rhyme or reason for the punishments. Should Martinez receive four years less punishment than Newberry and Gurwell simply because he pled guilty? Or should Cook receive 89 years more punishment Martinez because he had two prior unspecified convictions? Law enforcement authorities testified that Martinez had a history of repeatedly trying to solicit sex with minors online. He also exhibited the same proclivity to expose himself online as Cook had. So why should one serve six years while the other must serve 95 years?
What about those offenders who do not use the Internet but approach minors personally to solicit sex with them? Should they be treated harsher or less severely than those who troll the Internet in search of sexual prey?
On September5, 2007 the Seventh District Court of Appeals upheld the 12-year sentence imposed on James Orville Shepard for a § 15.021 conviction for criminal solicitation of a minor. See: Shepard v. State, 244 S.W.3d 421 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2007). The background facts are:
“On July 21, 2004, appellant went to the Santa Fe building in Amarillo to register to vote. While searching for the appropriate office, he encountered a lone female in a hallway outside of the Juvenile Probation office. Appellant asked the female (S.P.) how old she was. According to S.P., she told appellant that she was 14 years old. However, appellant contends that S.P. told him that she was 17 years old or, at least, that was what he understood her to say. Appellant then asked S.P. if she would like to go into the restroom with him to engage in oral sex. S.P. declined. Appellant then asked S.P. if she was sure, to which S.P. responded ‘yes.’
”Amarillo Police Sergeant Gerry Aaron was assigned to investigate this incident. Aaron obtained a photograph of appellant and showed it to S.P. who positively identified appellant as the person that had solicited her. Aaron then located appellant and discussed the incident with him in Aaron’s vehicle. Initially, appellant denied any knowledge of the incident, but then admitted that he had been in the Santa Fe building and had solicited a female for oral sex. However, appellant told Aaron that he thought that the female was 17. Subsequently, appellant gave a written statement to Aaron. In this statement, appellant states that he encountered a girl in the Santa Fe building, asked her how old she was, thought she said 17, and asked the girl if she wanted to have oral sex.” Id., at 422.
On March 26, 2008, the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting in Waco, issued a ruling in the case of Martin Douglas Lankford upholding his ten-year probated sentence and $10,000 fine. See: Lankford v. State, 255 S.W.3d 275 (Tex.-App.-Waco 2008). His case facts are:
“On December 13, 2005, C.B. was walking home from school on a cold, rainy day. Lankford saw C.B. walking in the rain and offered him a ride home. When he first got in the car, Lankford greeted him with a handshake that C.B. claims tickled the palm of his hand. Lankford then asked him whether he knew what the ‘secret’ handshake meant, and C.B. responded he did not. C.B. claims that although Lankford asked him if it would be okay if he explained to him what the handshake meant, Lankford never explained the handshake’s meaning, but when he parked in front of C.B.’s house, Lankford looked at him and asked if C.B. could ‘suck my cock.’
”When C.B. went inside his house, he loaded a .22 rifle, called his stepfather, and asked him to come home immediately. C.B.’s stepfather called the police, and Officer Masiongale came to take C.B.’s statement. At that time, C.B. was too upset to write his statement, so he asked his stepfather to write it for him. A ‘be on the lookout’ warning was put out, and Lankford was eventually detained by police and brought in for questioning.
”Upon questioning, Lankford admitted to picking up C.B. and giving him a ride home but denied that anything sexual was discussed. He mentioned that he thought C.B. was between the ages of sixteen and nineteen and referred to shaking hands with him several times. Throughout the interview, the police officers made several references to male genitalia, but only Lankford used the word ‘cock’ in a descriptive manner. Before the interview was over, Lankford asked the officers what would happen if he admitted to committing the crime. The police later obtained a warrant and arrested Lankford.” Id., at 276.
Why did Shepard get twelve years in prison while Lankford received ten years probation? Both men attempted to engage minors in oral sex. Shephard’s crime is no more heinous or offensive than Lankford’s. Yet the disparity between the two sentences is as disturbing as the 89-year difference between the sentences imposed on Cook and Martinez.
Finally, the most disturbing case in our research group, Phillip Ashcraft, whose case was decided on July 31, 2008 by the Third District Court of Appeals, sitting in Austin. A jury convicted Ashcraft of attempted sexual assault of a child (§§ 15.01, 22.011), attempted sexual performance by a child (§§ 15.01, 43.25), and two counts of criminal solicitation of a minor (§ 15.031). The jury assessed punishment at eight and ten years’ imprisonment for the two counts of criminal solicitation of a minor, ten years’ imprisonment for attempted sexual assault of a child, and ten years’ imprisonment for attempted sexual performance by a child. See: Ashcraft v. State, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 5823 (Tex.App.-Austin, July 31, 2008).
”This appeal involves what the Cyber Crimes Division of the Attorney General’s Office refers to as a ‘criminal solicitation traveler case.’ According to FBI special agent Karen McKay, a former agent with the Cyber Crimes Division and the State’s key witness in this case, ‘A traveler case is criminal solicitation where someone solicits a minor online to travel to meet them to engage in sexual intercourse.’
”The underlying facts are not in dispute. The jury heard evidence that in 2004, Agent McKay was posing online as ‘haileyhayes14,’ a fourteen-year-old girl. While in a chat room entitled, ‘I Like Older Men Best,’ McKay was contacted by an individual with the screen names ‘thebigboner36’ and ‘milfhunt66.’ The evidence showed that these screen names belonged to Ashcraft. McKay testified that between February 2 and February 18, 2004, Ashcraft made numerous online sexual solicitations to ‘haileyhayes14.’ The text of these online conversations were admitted into evidence. McKay further testified that Ashcraft ultimately arranged to meet her at a restaurant in Buda. According to McKay, Ashcraft informed her that he would be driving a green Ford pickup truck.
”On the morning of February 18, 2004, the day that Ashcraft had arranged to meet with ‘haileyhayes14,’ immediately prior to departing for Buda, Ashcraft initiated a final chat session with McKay.
”At approximately 11:25 a.m., Ashcraft pulled into the parking lot of the Buda Jack-in-the-Box driving a green Ford Ranger pickup truck. Several police officers were at the restaurant waiting for him, including Agent McKay and Sergeant Jennifer Bloodworth, also with the Attorney General’s Cyber Crimes Division. Sergeant Bloodworth’s job was to be inside the restaurant and pose as ‘haileyhayes14.’ When Ashcraft pulled into the parking lot, Bloodworth observed that he ‘appeared to be driving very slow as if he was looking for someone inside.’ Bloodworth testified, ‘As he pulled around I kind of looked over my shoulders and just kind of gave him a wave to verify that I was who he was looking for, which was Hailey Hayes, the 14-year-old female. At that point he pulled around and parked.’ Bloodworth added, ‘I did observe him kind of wave over the steering wheel.’ Once Ashcraft parked, the other officers approached his vehicle and immediately arrested him. Upon searching Ashcraft’s vehicle, officers found a digital camera, a stuffed animal, and a book entitled, ‘Travel Coupon Guide Motel/Hotel Discounts.’ Id., at Lexis 3-6.
The appeals court did not specify whether Ashcraft’s four sentences were concurrent or consecutive. For the purpose of our research group, we will assume they are concurrent giving him an aggregate 10-year term. That sentence is consistent with the 10-year terms imposed on Newberry and Gurwell. What is about Ashcraft, however, is the prosecutorial decision to overcharge him with four different offenses involving one criminal episode. The prosecutors in the other six cases in our research group could have overcharged those defendants but did not. Why did the prosecution choose to overcharge Ashcraft? It makes him appear to be a worst child predator than the other six in our group. But the facts in the seven cases belie this appearance.
Protecting children from adult sexual predators is an important public policy. That policy, however, is undermined when prosecutors unnecessarily overcharge in these cases, and when judges and juries impose grossly disparate punishments in cases whose facts are essentially the same. These practices erode confidence in our criminal justice system as surely as do wrongful convictions in child sexual assault cases.
By: Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
Take the first step toward protecting your freedom by contacting us now
Testimonials
John T. Floyd Law Firm
3730 Kirby Drive # 750, Houston
-
If you have hired attorneys that meet the Webster dictionary definition, ie: "Attorney " is a person that has a law degree, will not be totally honest, can take your money … More and not earn it, will put you off until he is ready to talk to you, and/or never study your case to be able to defend you. Mr. Floyd is the only attorney that doesn't fit that definition!! You will be delighted to have Mr. John Floyd in your corner! Not one attorney that I have ever met that would ever return a check that I sent to him, because he said I paid him too much! Wow! That right there should tell you something about his integrity!!!!! He has a very calm demeanor and doesn't stretch the truth even if you don't want to hear it, he will tell you the truth. Call and set up an appointment with him and judge for yourself. You are wasting time and money on any other attorney, just hire the best, Mr. Floyd.
-
John T. Floyd and his team are some of the best people! I was able to get a second opinion from them on legal advice. His team has been honest, kind, and very informative which has … More been a huge blesssing.
-
I highly recommend John T. Floyd Lawfirm. They are truly knowledgeable and willing to go the extra mile to defend your innocence. Psalms 35
-
Outstanding!Professional knowledge. Rich experiences. Good outcome.
-
-
The best lawyer I ever encounter with a very good personality. He’s very professional and he will go far and beyond for his clients best interest. He’s definitely a 5 star attorney … More when it comes to delivering. I couldn’t be more happier that I hired him !! 👏👏👏👏
-
-
I can honestly say from what I have seen so far, Floyd is a compassionate soul who cares for his client's. Floyd is by far very knowledgeable in this area. He's currently … More assisting my [Father] on a sex assault. We are all suffering so much as my father is an elder man, but we have faith in God, and Mr. Floyd he can dismissed this outrageous allegation soon. Thank you, yoli
-
I had wonderful experience with this law firm. They were so helpful and knowledgeable of the process.my case was dismissed because of Mr John T Floyd,thank you for everything .
-
I am very happy today my case dismissed God bless Mr John T Floyd very good lawyer thanks you so mush sir
-
I had a great experience with this Law Firm, the kind staff helped me locate a Lawyer even though they were unable to take my case.
They were very helpful, kind and returned my call … More in a timely manner. I would definitely recommend them and use them in the future. -
I can tell that Jone is an excellent attorney in Houston. Personally, he is a great man. In addition to great service and amazing results. Recommended
-
Mr. Floyd is an incredible attorney and human being. He cares about your case, the facts, the law, and your life! I am sorry for whatever situation you are going through, but choosing … More Mr. Floyd, his firm, and their professional experience to help you, will be the best decision you ever make!
-
John T Floyd is a straight shooter! He was very direct and responsive to my phone calls and questions. I was in awe of his knowledge, and professional decorum! The best decision that … More you could make is to schedule a consultation with him before considering anyone else!
-
I asked the Law Office of John T. Floyd a very important question regarding the legal aspects of purchasing a firearm with a deferred adjudication charge. They answered the question … More very professionally and accurately and I was quite pleased with the information that was shared. I recommend this law firm because they are very honest and will work for you and with you.
-
I’ve never been one to write reviews but this time I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to say something. I had some serious legal questions I needed answers to concerning Texas laws. … More Being I’m from another state, I found and reached out to Attorney John Floyd for the answers. Mr Floyd listened to to my requests and told me what he need from me and went out of his way to get me the answers. Very polite, straightforward and professional, I can’t thank him enough for all he’s done. Whatever your legal case may be, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend Mr Floyd.
-
John & Chris helped my family member get a reduced charge and acceptable plea agreement in place. Their compassion, attention to every detail was what helped carry the day.Truly … More the best of the best.P
-
Mr. Floyd is both ethical and loyal to his clients; two qualities that are hard to find specially in lawyers. I'd definitely recommend him to anyone.Positive
Professionalism …More … More -
Mr. John was very helpful and truly was the reason why my case was dismissed. Thank you so much Mr. John I truly recommend everyone in need to work with him.
-
His service to the community and diligence to helping his clients speaks for its self! Not to mention the many articles, papers and TV appearances that speak to his intellect
-
John has given Excellent service and have been very friendly and extremely helpful to us. I highly recommend this law firm
-
This law firm is diligent, responsive and succeeded in getting my case dismissed. 10/10 would recommend.
-
super knowledgeable, good attitude, would definitely recommend him
-
Very helpful, knowledgeable and honest.
-
John is an amazing person and lawyer who is actually very understanding of how anxious I got and although it was hard to reach him sometimes because of his schedule, but never worry … More he is on top of things. He is very organized, very smart. I had the experience to go through a trial with him, and he always plans ahead well and is actually open and receptive to any ideas and comments I had and he was quick to decide which is right to use at the moment. I really appreciated working with him and Chris. Great lawyers and great people. As I was reminded by John, I am adding that the Jury reached a not guilty decision on the original charge and on a lesser charge in just 25 minutes. It took more time to write the charge and instructions for the jury than it took them to reach a decision.
-
Highly recommend John T Floyd law firm, great response time and demeanor.I was researching an on-going criminal case, when I found an informative article written by John Floyd (about … More the perils of expert testimony). I called his office, and was very pleased to receive a timely call back. Not only was Mr. Floyd candid and helpful, but he had the kindest demeanor of any attorney that I've dealt with. I am so glad to have found this firm.
-
Although I am not a client, John Floyd contacted me the same day I sent an email requesting advice, answered my questions and even when further to assist with my issue and communicated … More with me the next day. A true credit to his profession and I can only imagine how well he provides services to his actual clients!
-
I give Mr. Floyd 10 Stars if they were available so I'm giving him five that's all that's available. The first time I left a message for him it was on a Friday after … More 5 p.m. and within 15 minutes he called me back I told him I needed to buy a lotto ticket because that has never happened. I knew from our chat and him calling me back that he was different from any attorney I've tried to talk to left messages never got called back they didn't even know what I needed and neither did Mr. Floyd but he did call me back. I was very interested in meeting with mr. Floyd about my case because I felt he was very transparent honest and genuine. If you've ever dealt with attorneys they don't have those traits but Mr. Floyd does. He was very honest with me told me what I could and could not do with my case. He is not egotistical he's very compassionate and he actually reads the documents you sent him unbelievable that's never happened. He will be the only lawyer I refer to anyone that needs his expertise. If you're in need of a criminal defense attorney please give John T Floyd a call you will not be disappointed.
-
Mr John is a great human being and a very knowledgeable attorney. He has always called me back promptly,advised me very clearly and never rushed our conversation. i was wrongfully accused … More and Mr John had my case DISMISSED!! on the day of trial after fighting for me for two years. I am very thankful to the John T. Floyd Law Firm. You will not go wrong with John. Mr John you deserve way more then 5 stars.Thank youShaikh.
-
John Floyd Law Firm is highly recommended for your legal needs. He and his staff are highly professional in every aspect. Easy and comfortable feeling talking with him, and he understands … More your needs and explains your legal advice in a way you can understand. Enough just cant be said. Thank You Sir.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John was kind enough to assist me with legal advise on my firearm gun rights restoration. I highly recommend him and his firm. Very professional and knowledgeable. If I need assistance … More in the future I will definitely go back to him.
-
What I liked the most was that he actually returned my phone after leaving a message unlike pretty much everyone else I called prior. He listened and answered my question with the best … More advice that would benefit me the most. I was actually lost from moving to Texas from a different state we’re laws vary and he pointed me toward the right direction to get a understanding of if I need to do business with him now or after I contact a lawyer in my home state.
-
John T Floyd handled my sons case & got a dismissal for us! He is great to work with, gets back to you promptly & knows what he’s doing. Definitely one of the best we have had … More to deal with!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John is honestly the best! The whole team is. He answered me in a timely manner and helped me when my friend was going through a situation in Houston, Texas as an inmate. He was so … More thorough, honest, and without charging me sent me so much information because I was out of the loop. He never once tried to take you for your money, he did all that he could to. help me and I can't thank him enough.
-
I have used John on two occasions and found him to have full knowledge of Texas law, diligent, creative in plan, and aggressive in defense. He is the best criminal defense attorney … More in the State of Texas. No reason to look elsewhere.
-
I have been calling to get some legal advice pertaining to gun rights. A few legal offices would not even take my call because quote " your not a client and Im losing money. … More I I called John T. Floyd Law Firm and they were not only able to answer my question, but gave great detail information, and further elaborated on their answer. I hope I do not have to use them in the future, but if I do need to, they will be my first call.
-
Great lawyer! Needed some advice and gave me a Consultation, and advice for steps to take, without any hassle l, Was a honest guy and actually wanted to help me and not just take my … More money! Highly recommend!!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Attorney Floyd replied very timely to my inquiry and he provided practical advice. I will not hesitate to contact him in the future if I need additional legal counsel.
-
Highly recommend, down to earth lawyer. Talked to me about my legal issues without being super money hungry and genuinely wanted to help me with my legal problems. 5 stars ⭐️.
-
Very knowledgeable and professional. I called and left a message Friday morning and before end of business that day I received a call back.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism … More …More -
Very helpful highly recommended for any Question / case will definitely keep he's name and number for any other legal advice
-
Excellent service and a lawyer that doesn't lie. He does what he says. JW recommends him.
-
One of the best services Ive used in awhile. Thank you for all the help and answers. You got my life back. Thank youPositive
Quality …More -
Im impressed. This guy was polite and professional and most important...he listened.
-
Good experience and very good lawyer
-
-
-
Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, ValueMore -
It was a pleasure speaking with John. He is knowledgeable and has a true desire to help the people of society. I turned to him for some guidance of a long-standing issue. He never … More rushed our conversation and went out of his way to look into the details to provide the right answer as well as assist me anyway he could. Thank you for our conversations and I wish your and your firm the best. If you need a lawyer, John Floyd is your guy!
-
John represented me in court for roughly 2 years. I won't (and shouldn't) get into any serious details, but let me tell you that I couldn't have chosen anyone better. … More Seriously.Every appearance in court I felt very comfortable. The judge and DA's had a high regard for his reputation. There is a time I recall where simply his presence greatly impacted the court's interpretation of my case and persons. We were in front of the stand and the judge could not stop talking about John's prestige and past accomplishments and how that took in relation to my case. I kept silent in front of the judge, but I observed then that John's popularity and reputation within the court had already given me a better looking rapport with the judge. Let me tell you, I never had more confidence then, knowing that the judge held him in such high regard.This is not to mention how personable John is. I'll be honest that during the stress of court, sharing a laugh with your lawyer helps a lot. This may sound a lot, but I really appreciated the relationship we had then. This is also not to mention that he was able to deal very well with any DA that rotated over the years. Seriously, John was great, prompt with information and very hands on with my case. I had great peace those 2 years until everything wrapped up.If you're looking for a lawyer, I highly, HIGHLY recommend the John T. Floyd Law Firm. He IS nationally renowned, you know. He'll get the job done to the utmost confidence. He's very experienced and has a great record to boot. I am glad to have had him represent me in court and trust me that I never thought I'd ever say that (and whoever does?). We explored every avenue of victory together and I personally enjoyed the experience, despite the seriousness of the accusation.If you have a case that needs to be represented at the highest levels, choose John T. Floyd. He's a good man and very good at what he does. Him and his team has the experience you need to make the best decisions and options to get the best outcome for your case. We got the best result I could possibly ask for, thank God.Seriously. Hire John. He knows what he's doing.Seriously.
-
One of the few honest lawyers I have ever talked to. His complimentary consultation was knowledgeable and thorough. He knew exactly what the issue was and how to handle it. His candid … More appraisal of the situation and how to proceed saved me thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you have a case requiring expertise in John's area of practice, look no further. Hire this man!
-
I had the opportunity to read an article that Mr. Floyd wrote and it was very interesting. I called him about the article and advice concerning a similar situation. He not only gave … More me excellent advice, he pointed out not just what I wanted to hear but what I needed to hear concerning my situation. The Good, The Bad and The ugly in a manner or speaking. He spoke with an open and honest heart with information to help me and not just to get a client.
-
If you are in trouble and need a lawyer, contact the John T. Floyd law firm. Some of the best lawyers in Texas work there! Understanding and helpful lawyers and staff that will do all … More they can to help you 😊
-
He gave me one of the most honest answers I have received in a very long time about any issue I was having with anything. Legal or not legal. I highly recommend giving him a call and … More will be referring him to friends and family if they have any issues in the future.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He took time out of his day to answer my legal questions and didn’t even charge me. I would definitely recommend him to you.
-
Gave free consultation on getting gun rights back. He truly cares about gun rights and getting you the help you deserve. 100% worth a callPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, … More Value …More -
Very professional, great quality work, and very friendly and helpful. Overall, their service is phenomenal. I recommend Mr. Floyd to anyone.
-
Mr. Floyd took the time to explain his experience with the law to me in layman's terms. Definitely give him a call.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He was honest , knowledgeable , and professional about what we talked about. Most lawyers are just about the money , but not john.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He was very truthful and honest with us very great man I would recommend him and we would use him again
-
Very professional honest and works hard currently working my husband’s appeal I pray he does his best workPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I contacted John T. Floyd Law firm and I was very satisfied with service extremely helpful and friendly thank you Mr. FloydPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More … More -
This law frim was informative,great response time ,and the attorney called back not some secretary or legal assistant thank u guys for all your help wish it was more like youPositive … More
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I would highly recommend Mr Floyd. He was very helpful and knowledge with a legal question I had.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He explained my case better then any other lawyerPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Very informative
-
-
-
-
Had the pleasure speaking with John Floyd on a personal matter, he was very responsive, nothing but exceptional, and he really cares about you with sincerity and most importantly knows … More what is he talking about! No games or bs, his approach to my situation even though I knew it was probably way smaller then what he normally takes on, he was extremely helpful and didn't care about the size of the matter like other attorneys do. He really looked out for my best interests. You can tell he has decades of experience doing what he does just by chatting with him. I would highly recommend him.
-
Words can’t describe how grateful I am for working with John, he went above and beyond my expectation. I was wrongly accused and hired many lawyers before hiring John Floyd but they … More all disappointed me, I had lost hope until a friend of mine referred me to John. From the start he had my best interest in mind and gave helpful advice, he explained the process and guided me. He put more work and time than all my previous lawyers that cost me thousands of dollars. He was constantly communicating with court and defended me more than all lawyer i had hired before him. Don’t waste your time and money like I did, believe me when I say I hired countless lawyers before him and no one came close to John. I’m forever thankful for him for fighting for my innocence and getting my case dismissed. Thank you so much🙏🏼🙏🏼
-
I called Mr Floyd and left a message, with in the hour I received a call back with much more information then I could have ever expected. Mr Floyd was very informative on every question … More I had for him. He seemed like he cared, instead of like most attorneys that you talk to that are just out for a quick buck. If you want someone that is going to shoot strait with you, and has your best interest in hand, this is you guy. This was the best experience that I have ever had with an lawyer.
-
I can state with confidence that Mr. Floyd and his team are the most competent and professional lawyers one can hope for. My case was quite complex and I admit that as a law student … More I was not the most patient client. Mr. Floyd did a phenomenal job of managing the bench, prosecution and myself! The result was above expectation, and I will never hesitate to recommend this firm regardless of the caliber of the case at issue.
-
It was a pleasure working with Mr. Floyd. I contacted him regarding a legal matter and he was extremely knowledgeable about the law, and responded in a timely manner. I appreciated … More the fact I did not feel rushed, and he made sure he thoroughly answered all questions I had. I would highly recommend him!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
Spoke with John Floyd about a 45 year old criminal case I was involved in. I had very little information about the case and John helped me search what records were available and gave … More me guidance to find more information. He was very professional and took his time helping me. I may need to hire a lawyer on this case and Mr. Floyd will be the man.Thanks John.
-
Very professional and straight forward. He's not going to waste your time or money. Very knowledgeable in a large range of possible matters one could face living in these days … More and times. If ever you need legal assistance, this is who I would suggest. Awesome!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I called about some legal questions I needed to get clarified and John was able to give me clarification and sound advice. I will definitely contact John for all future legal questions … More and issues.Thank you John!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism, Value …More -
Knows his stuff and well respected with DA and judges. I have referred him a couple times and every client has been satisfied
-
John is beyond knowledgeable! If I decide to pursue my case any further I would only have him represent me.
-
What a great attorney, this guy really took time out of his day to answer my questions and explain my case to me. Very grateful, thank you so muchPositive
Professionalism …More -
Absolutely a very professional lawyer. Very well read in the current law and more than willing to help if needed.
-
Mr. John he’s a professional he knows what he’s doing and he’s patient they recommend Him stronglyPositive
Professionalism …More -
Great service, very knowledgable and happy to help with any questions I had
-
Quick to action and helpful and knowledgeable with entertainment industry based issues!
-
Responded on a holiday week. Very knowledgeable and reassuring.
-
Very professional
-
-
-
-
I want to thank John T. Floyd and all of his team. He is the best lawyer who cares aboutHis clients and fights really hard to get the best outcome. He is a fighter and he is awesome!!!I … More recommend if any one needs criminal defense , he is the BEST. We had a really serious caseAnd we are very thankful for the outcome. Thank you John!!!!! God bless you!!!!!!
-
The attorneys at John T. Floyd Law Firm work diligently to achieve the best possible results for their clients. They are caring and knowledgeable professionals. Their expertise in the … More law and their experience as trial attorneys makes them the right choice as a defense attorney. I recommend this law firm highly.
-
From beginning to end this firm handled my case like the top tier professionals they are. I would not trust ANYONE else with my legal needs after having less than stellar experiences … More with other teams. Thank you Floyd!!!
-
I really felt like the team cared about my case and am super satisfied with the outcome. Would not recommend anyone else!
-
These guys do amazing work and have phenomenal service! Hands down best in the Houston area!!
-
John and Chris are true professionals! Love those guys like family!
-
Mr. Floyd and his team are very knowledgeable, informative, and helpful.
-
A team you can depend on to stand up and fight for you to prove the truth the whole truth!
-
-
Mr. John T. Floyd represented me.I couldn't be happier with the outcome he managed to achieve on an VERY Important case that was dismissed the day of Trial. He is patient & … More very knowledgeable of the legal system. I HIGHLY recommend him to anyone in need of a lawyer!John, I am forever grateful & satisfied with the effort you put forth & all you did for me. Thank you isn't enough!God bless you & your family!
-
The John T. Floyd Law Firm assisted me, and I can tell you that the attorney took the time to answer my questions, and I didn't feel rushed or dismissed as I have experienced in … More the past with attorneys. The attorney was very nice and extremely knowledgeable. Initial impressions and continued excellent customer service are big factors for me and as such I would highly recommend this firm.
-
I thank you for your efforts to help Felons regain their Civil rights, and for the information on possession , I am A convicted Felon, no violent history. I am an expert shot, I am … More 76 yoa, and very concerned about the present lake of Security in our State and Country. God Bless and Prosper you in your efforts, Your friend, Sonny Bivens
-
I really appreciated both Chris and John helping with my legal questions and concerns. Both are good guys and I would not hesitate to recommend them.
-
Extremely helpful!!! Helping me understand the law.
John T. Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Request A Confidential Consultation
Fields marked with an * are required
"*" indicates required fields
Copyright © 2024 John T. Floyd Law Firm • All rights reserved.
Designed & Developed by
