Dallas Ticket Lawyer
Dallas Municipal Court Perspectives
For Legal Advice Now Call: 214-321-4105
City Of Dallas Traffic Ticket Lawyer
There are many different Dallas Municipal Courts and judges and each one has their own personality and procedures when handling court matters. Just as you must know the law and facts of each case you must also know the person who will make crucial decisions regarding your case if you have pending traffic tickets in Dallas Municipal Court. A short list of the judges that maintain Dallas Municipal Court dockets is listed below. If you have traffic tickets in Dallas Municipal Court and are looking for assistance, our experienced legal team can help. Call our Dallas ticket lawyers today to discuss your case. The opinions of the judges below are the sole opinion of The Beltz Law Firm based on 10 years of experience of practice in Dallas Municipal Court. These opinions are nothing more than guideposts that are used by our legal team to help develop the best opportunity of success for our clients. If you have an opinion of any of the judges listed below or would like to leave a comment that would add to the information listed below, feel free to do so. We hope that this page becomes a sounding board for attorneys, defendants and prosecutors to help share their experiences with the public.
| Hon. C. Victor Lander, Administrative Judge – Court 9 | Notes: Is the chief judge. Has a good understanding of the law. Is being forced to balance justice with profits. To be monitored on ability to do this with any real balance. The hope is that he remains the chief judge as there is no alternative that better understands both the defense perspective and the City perspective regarding justice and profit. | ||||||
| Notes: The most rigid of the judges. Very state friendly. Probably has aspirations of being a chief judge someday. Do not expect to receive a favorable outcome for a defendant that has violated a court order. Excuses in this court for defaults of conditions on deferred agreements and payment extensions will normally fall on deaf ears. | Hon. Michael Acuna – Court 5 | ||||||
| Very fair and reasonable judge. Balances defendants rights with State’s prosecutorial power very well. Will get a fair trial in this court. If you are found guilty in this court or are convicted after a default on deferred conditions it is normally after every chance has been given to your client to succeed. | Hon. Carrie Chavez – Court 6 | ||||||
| Wild card in many ways. Has evolved over the years to be more of a balanced judge. Began with very state friendly attitude towards court decisions and procedures. Seems to have become more understanding of the issues related with defense work. To be monitored. | Hon. Julie Clancy, Court 7 | ||||||
| Very fair and unbiased. Has a real understanding of defendants and approaches job with great humility. Treats new and inexperienced attorneys with same respect as well seasoned lawyers. Has a great respect for both sides of the Municipal Bar. | Hon. Tim Gonzalez – Court 8 | ||||||
| Not enough data to form an opinion | Hon. David Indorf – Court 13 | ||||||
| Defense friendly in the times that our office has had dealings with the judge. Rumors that she can be biased against you if you test her temper. No proof that this is necessarily true. | Hon. Ruth Catherine Logan – Court 10 | ||||||
| Reasonable in rulings. Seems to be more at ease with his position over the years. Opinion is that he is a judge who prefers not to cause waves. Will make rulings in a way that promotes this. | Hon. Jay E. Robinson – Court 2 | ||||||
| Very opinionated. Vascilates between State friendly and defense friendly. Has had the opinion in the past that the defense bar is part of the problem with Dallas Municipal Court. Helped to create the afternoon docket system that is now in place. To a large part, that system has been a great success in clearing out old cases. Not given enough credit for his input on the subject. Has his favorites when it comes to the defense bar. Can be very political at times. | Hon. Daniel F. Solis – Court 3 | ||||||
| Probably more attached to her station as a judge than any other. Very rigid with her “court rules.” Expects every attorney to “know” what her rules are without exception. Must play by her rules in order to achieve justice for your client regardless of how irrelevant those rules may seem to a person unfamiliar with her court. Be prepared to be treated with a lack of respect if you are ignorant to her court procedures. Take the time to ask other attorneys how proceed in her court if you are unaware. | Hon. Cheryl D. Williams – Court 1 | ||||||
| No opinion | Associate Judges (Part-Time) | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Roland Anderson | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Melodee Armstrong | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Raquel Brown | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Marilyn Davis | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Frieda Fiske | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Tonya Goffrey | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Jennifer Goldman | ||||||
| Very reasonable. Very likeable. May have bias towards this judge however, due to previous litigation experience outside of this court. | Hon. Esther Grossman | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Carl Hays | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Aaron S. Kaufman | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. John McCully | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Daniel E. McDonald, Jr. | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Tim Menchu | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Monica Purdy | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Anthony Randall | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. Preston Robinson, Jr. | ||||||
| No opinion | Hon. E. A. Srere |
