CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The court denied relief on this post-conviction habeas corpus petition. Applicant pleaded guilty to second-degree rape in 1979. Applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. In 1985, applicant was convicted of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit theft. His parole on the rape case was revoked and he served the remainder of that sentence, plus the burglary sentence, concurrently. In 1988, applicant fully discharged both of these sentences. In 1991, the applicant was charged with burglary of a building with intent to commit theft. Applicant contended that the building was an abandoned warehouse within which he sought shelter. Unlike his other two cases, applicant pleaded not guilty and went to trial. A jury found him guilty and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. In 2001, applicant was released on mandatory supervision, subject to several conditions. The first condition required applicant to register as a sex offender, and the second required him to participate in a sex-offender treatment program. No record evidence suggests that applicant posed any threat of committing additional sexual offenses. Applicant agreed to all of the many other parole conditions, except those relating to sex offender registration and treatment. He refused to sign the form acknowledging agreement with those conditions. Despite applicant’s initial refusal to sign the agreement, he followed the sex offender registration and treatment conditions. The applicant faced substantial difficulty in finding steady employment, because he had to notify all prospective employers of his status as a registered sex offender enrolled in a sex offender treatment program. On Nov. 14, 2003, applicant failed to comply with one condition imposed as part of the sex-offender-treatment program: He did not pay the $200 cost of a polygraph test. At the hearing to revoke his parole, applicant offered evidence that he was not financially able to pay for the polygraph because he did not have a steady job. Four other witnesses testified on applicant’s behalf: a former employer testified that applicant had indeed sought employment, and that he himself had employed applicant sporadically for lawn maintenance and general labor; applicant’s brother and girlfriend both testified that they, on different occasions, had driven applicant to numerous employment interviews, but that all interviews were unsuccessful because of applicant’s registered sex offender status; a pastor testified that he had known applicant for three years, and that applicant actively participated in church and community activities, performed free labor for the church, and had always obeyed all of his parole conditions prior to the demand that he pay for a polygraph exam. The board revoked applicant’s parole because he failed to pay for the polygraph exam. DISSENT:Cochran, J., filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of relief, in which Price, Johnson, and Holcomb, JJ., joined. “[B]ecause the offense for which applicant was released on parole did not qualify as an [Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] Article 62.01(5)”reportable conviction or adjudication,’ he was not automatically required to register as a sex offender. Because applicant was not required to register as a sex offender, he should not have been subject to sex offender registration and treatment requirements absent independent evidence that he posed such a high present risk of sexual re-offending that imposition of a sex offender treatment program was constitutionally reasonable and remedial rather than punitive. “Thus, applicant’s parole was revoked based on non-compliance with a condition that he should not have been subject to absent any showing of a particularized need. Revocation of parole based on non-compliance with a condition that was wrongfully imposed is no different than revocation based on non-compliance with a condition that was never imposed. Neither is compatible with the federal Constitution or the laws of Texas. “Therefore, I would grant applicant’s requested relief and reinstate his parole without sex-offender registration or treatment program conditions.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.