CCA

Court Holds that Sex Offender Conditions Cannot be Added as a Condition of Parole for Cases That Do Not Involve a Sex Offense

Ex Parte Evans - The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered a case wherein sex-offender conditions were placed on a parolee for an offense other than a sex offense.

In October of 2001, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of reckless injury to a child (not a sexual offense). He was sentenced to ten years in prison on each count. On October 25, 2006, Appellant was released to parole in Lubbock, Texas. He then asked for his parole to be transferred to El Paso, Texas, where his children lived. Once he arrived in El Paso, his new parole officer gave him a “Notice and Opportunity to Respond Pre-Imposition of Sex Offender Special Conditions.” He submitted a written response stating that he was unable to produce any documentation to show that the offense he had been convicted of was unrelated to anything sexual in nature other than the fact that the victim’s doctor had testified that the injuries were not sexual in nature.

Despite his dispute, his parole officer recommended that “Special Condition X” (the sex-offender program) be added as a condition of his parole.  From all accounts, immediately after the condition was imposed, Appellant went “downhill.”  He was not allowed to visit his children anymore.  Further, in October of 2008, Appellant’s parole officer and a handful of other officers searched the Appellant’s home. Inside, they found a cell phone on Appellant’s bed that had a picture of a nude woman on it. Several other pictures of nude women were found in his cell phone online photo album. Also, the officers found two pornographic DVD’s - all of which were unlawful for Appellant to possess while a registered sex offender.

Appellant’s parole was then revoked upon a motion by the State. At the hearing, Appellant argued that the conditions had been unconstitutionally imposed without due process and that the facts of his conviction did not justify such sex-offender conditions. His argument fell on deaf ears and he was returned to prison.

On a writ of habeas corpus, the trial judge found that Appellant had not been convicted of a sex offense, that there was no evidence of sexual abuse of his victims, and that he was not afforded due process before the imposition of the sex offender conditions. The trial judge relied on an opinion out of the 5th Circuit, Meza v. Livingston, 623 F.Supp.2d 782 (W.D. Tex. 2009). That case had almost the exact same facts as Appellants case and the court in the Meza case found that due process had not been afforded in imposing sex-offender conditions as a condition of parole. Here, the CCA acknowledged the opinion but stated that the Meza opinion failed to clarify “exactly how much process is constitutionally due before sex-offender conditions may be imposed upon a parolee who has not been convicted of a sex offense.”

The CCA then cited the Fifth Circuit’s analysis of this issue in the 2004 case, Coleman v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2004) which ultimately held that “a parolee who has not been convicted of a sex offense must be afforded the following procedures before sex-offender conditions may be imposed on him:

(1) written notice that sex offender conditions may be imposed as a condition of mandatory supervision;

(2) disclosure of the evidence being presented against [the person] to enable him to marshal the facts asserted against him and prepare a defense;

(3) a hearing in which [the person] is permitted to be heard in person, present documentary evidence, and call witnesses;

(4) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, unless good cause is shown;

(5) an impartial decision maker;

(6) a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons it attached sex offender conditions to his mandatory supervision.”

The Court held that because these procedures were not offered to Appellant, he was entitled to the relief he sought: immediate release on mandatory supervision without sex-offender conditions, and, if TDCJ sought to re-impose such conditions he was entitled to the protection of the Meza due-process procedures. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice did chime in with four arguments advocating for the actions of the parole officer but the court shot them all down (see the original opinion for more detail).

What’s the take-away? It’s pretty simple my opinion: Due process must be afforded to individuals on parole when the State attempts to add sex-offender conditions on a parolee who has not been convicted of a sexually related offense.

Just for good measure, here are some helpful links pertaining to Sex Offenders and Sex Related Crimes:

Council on Sex Offender Treatment Home Page

Sex Offender Laws, Legislation-Rules and Sex Offender Legislation-Laws

What follows is an excerpt from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ recent published decision in Ex Parte Gutierrez regarding the propriety of post-conviction DNA testing. It does not reflect new law on the subject, but is helpful as a refresher.  These are the statutory hurdles a person must jump in order to have the original evidence tested for DNA in hopes of proving his/her innocence:

There is no free-standing due-process right to DNA testing, and the task of fashioning rules to “harness DNA’s power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice” belongs “primarily to the legislature.”  In Texas, Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the judge of the convicting court to order DNA testing when requested by a convicted person if it finds all of the following:

(1) evidence exists that by its nature permits DNA testing;

(2) the evidence was either:

(a) justifiably not previously subjected to DNA testing [because DNA testing i) was not available, or ii) was incapable of providing probative results, or iii) did not occur “through no fault of the convicted person, for reasons that are of such a nature that the interests of justice require DNA testing”]; or

(b) subjected to previous DNA testing by techniques now superseded by more accurate techniques;

(3) that evidence is in a condition making DNA testing possible;

(4) the chain of custody of the evidence is sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material respect;

(5) identity was or is an issue in the underlying criminal case;

(6) the convicted person has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the person would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing; and

(7) the convicted person has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the request for DNA testing is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice.

An indigent convicted person intending to file a motion for post-conviction DNA testing now has a limited right to appointed counsel. That entitlement used to be absolute, but it is now conditioned on the trial judge’s finding “that reasonable grounds exist for the filing of a motion.” If all of the prerequisites set out above are met, the convicting court must order testing. Then, after “examining the results of testing under Article 64.03, the convicting court must hold a hearing and make a finding as to whether, had the results been available during the trial of the offense, it is reasonably probable that the person would not have been convicted.” Exculpatory DNA testing results do not, by themselves, result in relief from a conviction or sentence. Chapter 64 is simply a procedural vehicle for obtaining certain evidence “which might then be used in a state or federal habeas proceeding.”

Can a defendant waive his constitutional right to trial by six jurors (in County Court)?

The United States Supreme Court has held that a state-law scheme that imposed a jury of fewer than six members upon a defendant, even one accused of only a misdemeanor offense, violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Ballew v. State, 435 U.S. 223 (1978). For Texans, Article V, Section 17, of the Texas Constitution provides: “A jury in the County Court shall consist of six persons [.]” Furthermore, Section 62.301 of the Texas Government Code provides, without explicit exception, that a jury in a County Court “is composed of six persons.” Conspicuously, the similar Government Code provision (Section 62.201) requiring a 12-person jury in a District Court contains an exception that allows the parties to dispense with the full complement of jurors.

So what is the rule? Must a County Court jury have six or can it have less? The Supreme Court and the Texas Constitution and statutes call for six jurors in a misdemeanor criminal trial. But may the defendant waive this requirement? This issue was recently decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex Parte Garza.

In Ex Parte Garza, the defendant was set to be tried for misdemeanor DWI when one of the six petit jurors became ill and was hospitalized. The trial court continued the case for a few days in hopes that the ailing juror would recover, but he did not. The trial court then entertained the option of granting a mistrial for manifest necessity. The defense objected to the mistrial, stating that it has the jury that it wanted to hear the case. The defense requested another continuance or, in the alternative, to proceed to trial without the ailing juror. The trial judge denied the continuance and did not address the option of proceeding with fewer than six jurors. The trial court then granted a sua sponte mistrial over the defense objection.

When the case was reset for trial, the defendant filed a pre-trial application for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that because the trial court prematurely terminated the prior proceedings without having considered a less drastic alternative, his right against double jeopardy was violated. The trial court denied relief, but the 1st District Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed. “The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred not to explore the less drastic alternative of conducting the trial without the full complement of six jurors.”

The CCA now affirms the judgment of the 1st Court of Appeals. Writing for the majority, Judge Price explained:

Once a defendant shows he is being tried for the same offense after declaration of a mistrial, to which he objected, a heavy burden shifts to the State to justify the trial court’s declaration of the mistrial. The State must demonstrate a “manifest necessity” for a mistrial, which is to say a “high degree” of necessity, and the trial court’s discretion to declare a mistrial based on manifest necessity is limited to, and must be justified by, extraordinary circumstances. That discretion is abused, we have said, whenever the trial court declares a mistrial without first considering the availability of less drastic alternatives and reasonably ruling them out.

Regarding whether the trial court could have proceeded with only five jurors (as a less drastic alternative the mistrial), the CCA noted that “this Court and its predecessor, the Texas Court of Appeals, have held for more than a century that the Code of Criminal Procedure does at least implicitly permit waiver of the right to six jurors in cases tried in County Court.” Quoting the Supreme Court in Ballew:

To deny [the accused] his power to [waive his right to a six person jury] is to convert a privilege into an imperative requirement.

Imposing such a requirement on Texas defendants was not something the CCA is willing to do. Citing a long history of cases dating back to the early 1900s, the CCA noted how Texas has consistently allowed a defendant to waive his right to trial by a full complement of jurors. Therefore, the CCA held that by terminating the trial proceedings without considering whether to allow the trial to proceed with five jurors, the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, a new trial is jeopardy barred.

Takeaway: Consistent with Texas jurisprudence for the last 120 years, a defendant may waive his right to trial by six jurors in a County Court and proceed with less than the full amount.

Presiding Judge Keller and Judge Cochran dissented without opinion.

Today, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals released Meekins v. State, a case out of Lubbock County wherein the issue for appellate review was whether that State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Appellant had consented to a search of his vehicle.

At a pre-trial hearing to determine whether the drugs found during the search should be suppressed, the trial court ruled that Appellant’s consent to search was given knowingly and voluntarily. The court, therefore, refused to suppress the evidence. Here’s the evidence on which the trial court based its ruling:

After officers pulled Appellant over for failing to signal a turn, the following exchange occurred between Appellant and the officer while the officer talked to Appellant through the driver's side window:

Officer: You don’t have anything illegal in the vehicle, no weapons or anything like that?

Appellant: No

Officer: You don’t mind if we take a look?

Appellant: (Inaudible) Look in the car or what?

Officer: Yeah.

Appellant: I don’t have anything.

Officer: Okay. You don’t mind if I look? It’s yes or no, bud.

Appellant: What do you think?

Officer: What do I think?

Appellant: Yeah.

Officer: I’m asking you to look in the car.

Appellant: (Inaudible)

Officer: Don’t reach around, bud, just in case you got a gun.

Appellant: I ain’t got no gun or nothing.

Officer: You don’t mind if we look?

Appellant: I just…(inaudible) That it (inaudible).

Officer: Okay.

Appellant: (Inaudible)

Officer: I’m asking if I can look in the vehicle. It’s yes or no.

Appellant: (Inaudible)

Officer: Is there anything else you might have? You seem a little nervous, you know what I’m saying? You’re making me nervous.

Appellant: I ain’t nervous.

Officer: Okay. Do you have anything illegal in your vehicle?

Appellant: No.

Officer: Okay. Do you mind if I look?

Appellant: I guess.

After that, the officer, believing he has been given consent, ordered Appellant to exit the vehicle. Ultimately the officer found the contraband (marijuana) in Appellant’s pocket.

The 7th District Court of Appeals (Amarillo) reversed the trial court’s ruling, holding that “the State failed to clearly and convincingly prove that Appellant granted the officer positive, unequivocal, and voluntary consent to search his car.”

In an opinion written by Judge Cochran, the CCA now reverses. Upholding the trial court’s original ruling, the CCA relied on the "totality of the circumstances" and the deference given the trial court to make factual. The CCA noted, however, that this was a close case and that if the trial judge had found that the consent was not voluntary, they would have upheld that factual finding as well.

Dissenting, Judge Meyers joined by Judge Price, states:

I certainly do not know what is clear and convincing about appellant’s alleged consent. Although the majority gives lip service to the applicable rule, the majority misapplies it because these facts are anything but clear and convincing.

The dissent goes on the state that because Appellant’s words and actions demonstrate evasiveness and reluctance rather than positive, unequivocal consent, the evidence should have been suppressed.

This case shows how important it is to fight (and win) suppression motions at the trial level. An appellate lawyer can only do so much against the mountain of deference the appellate courts give the original fact finder’s decision. As the CCA noted in this case – if the trial court had gone the other way, they would have held that way too.

In Schmerber v. California, 348 U.S. 757 (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a warrantless blood draw constitutes a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Court also laid out the two-part test for determining the legality of the search:

1) Whether the police were justified in requiring [the suspect] to submit to a blood test; and 2) Whether the means and procedures employed in taking [the suspect’s] blood respected relevant Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness.

Schmerber, however, involved a blood draw performed by medical personnel at a hospital according to acceptable medical practice. In holding that the search was reasonable in that case, the Court conspicuously noted:

We are this not presented with the serious questions which would arise if a search involving use of a medical technique, even the most rudimentary sort, were made by other than medical personnel or in other than a medical environment – for example, if it were administered by police in the privacy of the stationhouse. To tolerate searches under these conditions might be to invite an unjustified element of personal risk of infection or pain.

Id. at 771-772 [emphasis added].

Well…what if a police officer draws the blood? At the stationhouse?

This happened in State v. Johnston.

A woman was arrested for suspicion of DWI and two Dalworthington Gardens officers drew her blood at the Dalworthington Gardens stationhouse. That the officers had a warrant did not convince the suspect to comply with the request to draw her blood. Ultimately, the officers had to strap her to a table using gauze to keep her still enough to draw her blood.

Although the officer that drew the blood was a prior EMT and had been certified by a local physician to draw blood, the trial court suppressed the blood evidence, finding that the search was unreasonable under Schmerber. Troubled by the fact that the officers did not ask the suspect for a general medical history before conducting the blood draw, the fact that the blood draw was not recorded, the fact that the suspect was restrained, and the fact that the department did not have any clear guidelines for using force during DWI blood draws, the 2nd District Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) agreed that the trial court appropriately suppressed the evidence.

The State appealed, arguing that the Court of Appeals’ interpretation was too narrow. The defendant also appealed, arguing that the Supreme Court intended a per se ban on police officers drawing blood from DWI suspects.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals began its analysis by recognizing that the “for the general population, the Supreme Court has determined that a blood test is a reasonable means in which to analyze an individual’s blood alcohol content.” And in this case, because there was no evidence that the suspect suffered from a medical condition that would have made another means of testing preferable, it was not unreasonable (under Schmerber) to draw the suspect’s blood.

The CCA also held that Chapter 724 of the Texas Transportation Code – the chapter that deals with the implied consent law and details who may draw a person’s blood – is inapplicable to a reasonableness determination in this case, because the officers had a warrant. The defendant argued that because a police officer is not listed as a person authorized to draw blood under Chapter 724, the blood draw was unreasonable.  Chapter 724, the CCA concluded, applies only in cases where there is no warrant.

Regarding the test for reasonableness, the CCA concluded that “the reasonableness of the manner in which a DWI suspect’s blood is drawn should be assayed on an objective, case-by-case basis in light of the totality of the circumstances. In this case, the totality of the circumstances indicate that the search was reasonable.

•  The officer that drew the blood was a licensed EMT. (He had also been certified by a local physician, but the CCA didn’t care about that).
• The Supreme Court (Schmerber) does not require that the draw be done in a hospital or clinic and several other jurisdictions agree.
• The trial court concluded that the officers followed medically accepted procedures for drawing the blood.
• The use of reasonable physical force to obtain a blood sample is permissible.

The CCA held that the blood draw performed at the stationhouse by the police officers was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Schmerber.   I would agree (in this case).  I wonder how many police officers (especially ones that deal regularly with DWI) are getting in line to get EMT certified now.