CCA

Last week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion in Coronado v. State.

[The CCA] granted review of the case to determine whether the videotape procedures set out in [the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] Article 38.071, Section 2, including the use of written interrogatories in lieu of live testimony and cross-examination, satisfy the Sixth Amendment rights of confrontation...

The case involved a six year-old child sexual abuse victim (who was three years-old when the abuse began) that the trial court determined was "unavailable" to testify in court because of the likelihood that she would suffer severe emotional trauma upon seeing the defendant.  Accordingly, the trial court allowed a neutral child interviewer to videotape an interview pursuant to Article 38.071, Section 2.  The defense counsel agreed to this procedure and propounded numerous questions for the interviewer to ask.  The defense counsel also agreed to allow the interviewer to ask follow-up questions that she deemed appropriate.  At trial, the videotaped testimony of the child was played to the jury in lieu of any live testimony by the victim.

The videotape procedures of Article 38.071, Section 2, were enacted prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington.  Since that time, there has been a marked shift in confrontation clause jurisprudence in favor of a strict requirement of face-to-face live confrontation.  The lower appellate court, however, failed to cite (or even mention) the Crawford line of cases in its analysis.  The CCA, on the other hand, explained:

We are unable to find any post-Crawford precedent from any jurisdiction that states, or even suggests, that a list of written interrogatories, posed by a forensic examiner to a child in an ex parte interview, is a constitutional substitute for live cross-examination and confrontation...There was no "rigorous adversarial testing" of [the child victim's] testimonial statements by that greatest legal engine for uncovering the truth: contemporaneous cross-examination.  The written-interrogatories procedure used in this case does not pass muster under our English common-law adversarial system or our United States Constitution.

The CCA's reluctance to overturn this case was apparent.  On page 2 of the opinion, Judge Cochran writes, "On federal constitutional matters, we are obliged to follow the dictates of the United States Supreme Court regardless of our own notions."

Judge Hervey concurred.  While she agreed with the majority that the procedure used in this case was unconstitutional, she wrote separately to express her opinion that the defendant's right to confrontation should be balanced with the societal interest in protecting child sexual abuse victims.  She would not foreclose the possibility of allowing testimony via closed circuit television where the witness would testify in a separate room, but where the victim could still see the defendant and the jury.

Presiding Judge Keller dissented.  In a well-reasoned opinion, she explains why she believes that the confrontation clause was not violated in this case.  She calls this a "close case," but she would have affirmed.

Back in June of this year the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed a case involving a conflict of interest.  Criminal defense attorneys will find that conflict issues come up frequently. The writ of mandamus that the CCA heard in this case addresses conflicts of interest and provides some assurance as to what attorney’s can do to shore up any issues they may have with conflicts.

In Bowen v. State, a writ of mandamus was filed by a defense attorney representing a client on trial for Capital Murder.  A principal witness in the case against his client was a jailhouse informant who happened to also be a former client of the defense attorney.  The State moved to disqualify the attorney arguing that his ability to cross-examine his former client would be hampered because of the past representation.  At a hearing on the State’s motion to disqualify, the attorney introduced into the record signed written waivers from both his client on trial for capital murder and the witness whom he formally represented.  The trial court granted the State’s motion to disqualify the attorney.

The Court primarily looked to the Sixth Amendment as addressed by the Supreme Court in Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988).  In Wheat, the Court emphasized the question of whether or not an actual conflict exists.  The Court held that trial courts must, “recognize a presumption in favor of [a defendant’s] counsel of choice, but that presumption may be overcome not only by a demonstration of actual conflict but by a showing of a serious potential for conflict.” Id. at 164.  In absence of an actual conflict, the court gives great weight to a waiver.

The Court in the Bowen case held that the decision to disqualify the attorney was a clear interference with the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and that there had been no evidence of the existence of an actual conflict.  Ultimately, the Court held that the waiver that had been signed was sufficient in this case to preclude disqualification of the attorney.

It is a “must” in the defense world to obtain waivers when facing potential conflicts of interest.  Even in a Capital Murder case, a waiver can be effective to disclaim the conflict.  This case does not make waivers the "end-all, be-all," but it does show the legal world that the court will give great deference to waivers and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to the counsel of their choice.

Ex Parte Neal Hampton Robbins – Tex. Crim. App. , June 29, 2011

In 1999, Neal Robbins was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison for the death of his girlfriend’s 17 month-old child. The cause of death as reported by the medical examiner was asphyxiation by compression. The medical examiner testified to her theory at trial and despite contrary evidence that the compression wounds may have resulted from adult administered CPR, the jury convicted Robbins of capital murder.

In 2007, at the urging of one of Robbins’s acquaintances, the original findings of the medical examiner were reviewed by the Harris County Medical Examiner’s Office. The Deputy Chief Medical Examiner disagreed with the findings and the trial testimony of the original medical examiner. The autopsy report was then amended to reflect that the cause and manner of death was “undetermined.” Eventually, the original medical examiner was asked to review her prior findings. In a letter to the district attorney, she stated:

I believe that there are unanswered questions as to why the child died, and I still feel that this is a suspicious death of a young child. Given my review of all the material from the case file and having had more experience in the field of forensic pathology, I now feel that an opinion for a cause and manner of death of "undetermined" is best for this case.

She went on to explain that the bruises she originally equated with asphyxiation by compression could have resulted from aggressive CPR and other efforts to assist the child.

Armed with the recantation of the chief government witness, Robbins filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in June of 2007. The State did not oppose the application and recommended that Robbins be given a new trial “because his due process rights to a fair trial and impartial jury were violated.” In response, the trial court appointed yet another medical to review the evidence and offer an opinion. This time, the chairman of the Department of Pathology at Baylor College of Medicine opined that the original determination of the cause of death, as presented in the capital trial, could not be supported by the evidence.

Not satisfied with this opinion, the trial court ordered one last review by another pathologist. This last and final pathologist stated that it was her opinion that the child’s death was a homicide and that the manner of death was asphyxia by suffocation (a theory not presented at the original trial). After this finding, the State withdrew its recommendation that a new trial be granted, but agreed not to oppose the request for a new trial.

After an evidentiary hearing into the cause of the child’s death, the trial court recommended that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals grant Robbins’s request for a new trial.

A slim majority (5-4) of the CCA was not equally convinced. Characterizing Robbins’s application as a “bare innocence claim,” the CCA explained that it must “look to see whether there is ‘clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence.’”

The CCA concluded that:

[The original medical examiner] did not entirely repudiate her testimony. Although she can no longer stand by her more definite trial testimony, it remains at least possible that [the child’s] death could have occurred as [the medical examiner] originally testified. Thus, [her] re-evaluation does not void her trial testimony. The jury could have considered [her] “undetermined” opinion and still found Applicant guilty, especially in light of all of the other evidence adduced at trial. Applicant has, therefore, failed to make the requisite showing “by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of” [the medical examiner’s] re-evaluation.

Application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Judge Price Concurred.

Judge Cochran, joined with Judges Womack and Johnson dissented, stating:

I certainly agree [that]…applicant has not established his actual innocence-not even close. But, given the inexperienced trial and habeas judge’s legitimate and serious concerns about the impact of [the medical examiner’s] testimony at trial on the critical and hotly disputed issue of [the child’s] cause of death, I agree that applicant did not receive a fundamentally fair trial based upon reliable scientific evidence (or the honest admission that science cannot resolve the critical issue.)

Judge Alcala also dissented in a separate opinion, stating that she would grant relief because Robbins “was denied due process of law by the State’s use of false testimony to obtain his conviction.”

If only Robbins had been tried in Florida by Casey Anthony’s jury, this entire appeal could have been averted.

In a recent case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, encourages trial judges to take off the hypertechnical blinders and consider the totality of the circumstances when reviewing the propriety of search warrants and their accompanying affidavits.

State v. Jed Jordan – (29 June 2011) Judge Womack writing for a unanimous court:

An affidavit for a DWI search warrant to search an accused’s blood began with a statement that the officer had “good reason to believe that heretofore, on or about the 6th day of June, 2008, [the suspect] did then and there commit [the offense of DWI.] The affidavit then went on to describe the specific conduct that the suspect exhibited that gave rise to the DWI arrest. However, when describing the conduct, the officer did not state that the conduct also occurred on the 6th of June, 2008. The magistrate issued the warrant and blood was drawn indicating that the suspect had, indeed, driven while intoxicated.

At trial, the court suppressed the results of the blood test, ruling that the DWI search warrant was deficient as it failed to allege the specific date and time the officer observed the conduct giving rise to the arrest. The 3rd District Court of Appeals (Austin) affirmed.

The CCA took the time in its opinion to distinguish prior caselaw on this subject and held:

The observations of driving and intoxication described in the second part of the affidavit were the elements of the offense alleged in the first part of the affidavit (where the time of the offense was alleged). Under the circumstances of this case, it was a reasonable inference that the observations occurred on the same day that the offense was alleged to have occurred. We therefore hold that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider the totality of the circumstances contained within the four corners of the affidavit in reviewing the magistrate’s basis for determining probable cause.

The CCA went on to do some “math for lawyers” that was apparently missing at the trial level:

We also find that the magistrate had a substantial basis for determining probable cause despite the failure of the affiant to specify that time of the stop. Because the warrant was issued on June 6th at 3:54 am, less than four hours could have elapsed between the observation of the offense, and the issuance of the warrant.

Calling on the trial court (and the 3rd Court below) to focus on the totality of the affidavit, the CCA remanded the case to the trial court, where, they might just have themselves a DWI trial after all.

In September of 2010, the 3rd Court of Appeals (Austin) reversed the sexual assault conviction of Mark Barshaw because the trial court allowed the following testimony of an MHMR expert regarding the truthfulness of mentally retarded individuals:

It's been my experience that folks with mental retardation can be painfully honest, really. I mean, it's like a little kid who looks at somebody and says in the supermarket, 'You're really old,' or, you know, whatever little kids do.

See our prior post HERE.  The State appealed the 3rd Court’s reversal and now, in an opinion released on 29 June 2011, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Court of Appeals.

Barshaw v. State (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 2011)

Apparently troubled by the less-than-thorough harm analysis conducted by the lower court, the CCA explained:

Even in cases in which credibility is paramount, Texas courts have found harmless error when the inadmissible expert testimony was only a small portion of a large amount of evidence presented that the jury could have considered in assessing the victim’s credibility. Upon reviewing the record as a whole, we find that additional evidence exists that should have been considered in the court of appeals’s harm analysis, as is required by [our previous caselaw].

With that, the CCA remanded the case back to the 3rd Court of Appeals to conduct a full harm analysis. A shot across the bow perhaps? I think the odds are heavily in favor of the Court of Appeals changing its mind on this one. We’ll see.

Child Search Authority | Consent to Search Without a Warrant

Investigating a reported shooting, the police knock on the door to a home that is answered by an adolescent (a minor). Can the minor give the police permission to enter the home? Must the police ask whether the minor lives in the home? Should the police ask to speak to an adult? These issues were considered by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Limon v. State, a case that was released a couple of weeks ago and designated for publication.

In an 8-1 decision, with Judge Womack writing for the majority, the CCA held that, while there is no per se rule that a child may or may not give consent to entry, a minor may possess apparent child search authority. The CCA cited the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the case of Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) and also noted five key facts that contributed to its ultimate conclusion that the minor in this case had the apparent authority to consent to entry:

1) [The minor] opened the door by himself in response to [the officer’s] knock;

2) The trial court could have inferred from [the officer’s] testimony that [the minor] appeared to be a teenager of significant maturity, if not a young adult;

3) [The minor] consented to mere entry through the front door, as opposed to entry or search of less public areas of the house. (The reasoning being that the trial court could have believed that it was reasonable to rely on a teenager’s authority to consent to such a limited scope of entry, while it would not have been reasonable to rely on his authority to consent to a more intrusive search.);

4) The officer’s announced purpose was to conduct an emergency public-safety function; and

5) The time of entry (2 AM) could have led the trial court to believe that an individual opening the door at that hour was a resident rather than a guest.

Judge Meyers dissented, stating:

Nobody gives a teenager permission to allow strangers into their home. Yet, the majority focuses on what apparent authority the child in this case may have had to let the cops into the house a 2 o’clock in the morning. The police should presume that minors have no authority to consent to entry and should ask to speak to an adult. If no adults are available then the officers need to get a warrant (and possibly call CPS).

Here’s the scenario – man is caught entering a home through a window that he broke. A female occupant of the home comes face-to-face with him and he then runs away. Is there evidence that the man was attempting to unlawfully enter the woman’s home? Certainly. Is there evidence to support the notion that he intended to commit a theft (or other felony) therein? That’s the question.

In Gear v. State, when posed with this question, the 12th District Court of Appeals (Tyler) held that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the man intended to commit a theft or other felony on the premises. Yes, the man tried to break in and yes the man was poor, but the State simply did not prove that an attempted “burglary” had occurred.

Enter the CCA (and exit the burden of proof). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Court of Appeals, holding:

On this record, we decide that a factfinder could reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt that the recently unemployed appellant with about one dollar in his pocket intended to commit theft inside the complainant’s home when he attempted to enter the home through the window that he had just broken and where the evidence also shows that appellant ran when interrupted by the complainant and that appellant gave conflicting and implausible explanations for his actions.

If you ask me, who cares what explanations appellant gave for his actions? The State must prove this specific intent crime. The burden doesn’t shift to appellant to prove his innocence. If the State doesn’t prove the specific intent to commit theft, a verdict of acquittal is required.

Judge Cochran dissented from the majority. She writes,

[The majority opinion] seems to me to be a “Don’cha know” standard; appellant broke the window and was about to climb inside, therefore “don’cha know” he intended to commit theft…Looking at all of the evidence in this case, even in the light most favorable to the trial judge’s verdict, I cannot find the evidence sufficient in quality, character, or weight…

While everyone can probably agree that the man intentions were not honorable, if the State is going to charge something, the State must prove up the charge.

Here's an excerpt from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' majority (5-3) opinion in Phillips v. State, which dealt with the Ex Post Facto application of a statute of limitations law for sexual offenses:

"Appellant was convicted of twelve counts of sexual offenses against his daughter that occurred in 1982 and 1983. But prosecution under the 2007 indictment charging appellant was absolutely barred by the statute of limitations in 1993. These charges could not be resurrected by a 1997 statute extending the statute of limitations for sexual offenses. No one–not the trial judge, the prosecutor, the defense, or the court of appeals–recognized this constitutional ex post facto violation. Because this is an important constitutional issue that will undoubtedly recur given the even more recent statutory elimination of the statute of limitations for some sexual offenses, we granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review. Although the State Prosecuting Attorney (SPA) agrees that the statute of limitations had run before appellant’s indictment, she argues that appellant failed to preserve this issue for appeal because he did not object in the trial court. We reaffirm our prior opinions that have stated that an absolute statute-of-limitations bar is not forfeited by the failure to raise it in the trial court. We reverse the court of appeals, which held that appellant’s prosecution was not barred."

Presiding Judge Keller dissented, joined by Judges Keasler and Hervey.  They would hold that the trial judge's ex post facto application of the law may violate due process, but that the majority got it wrong because the prohibition on ex post facto laws only applies to the legislature.

Yesterday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals released a published opinion (In Re Bowen) in an original mandamus proceeding. The relators (i.e. petitioners), two capital murder defendants, requested that the CCA direct the trial judge to rescind his order disqualifying the relators’ mutually retained counsel of choice. The State had moved that the counsel be disqualified due to a perceived conflict of interest and the fact that he would be called to cross-examine another one of his clients (a witness that the State intended to call).

The two defendants and the other client had all signed waivers regarding the actual or apparent conflict, but that did not satisfy the trial judge. In granting the State’s motion to disqualify the counsel, the trial judge stated:

It’s really about the integrity of the judicial process and the public’s perception of the judicial process and what it would look like to go to a trial on a capital murder case where the same attorney representing both defendants is also representing one of the prosecution’s witnesses.

He went on:

I know how these things play out. I’m telling you I can see some reporter that doesn’t understand diddly about what’s going on in the trial but, you know, can pick up an issue like this and make a story out of it.

Surely he doesn’t mean me. I’m confident that I at least know diddly about the system, if not more.

In the mandamus proceeding, the CCA was called upon to overturn the trial court’s order. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court case, Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988), the CCA explained that trial courts “must recognize a presumption in favor of a defendant’s counsel of choice.” The CCA also noted that “when a trial court unreasonably or arbitrarily interferes with the defendant’s right to choose counsel, its actions rise to the level of a constitutional (6th Amendment) violation.”

The CCA emphasized that conflict of interest cases really turn on the facts found by the trial court. In this case, the trial defense counsel offered a sealed affidavit explaining why his mutual representation would not amount to a conflict. He did not share his reasoning in open court for fear that the State would then know what he had up his sleeve. Once the CCA examined the defense counsel’s affidavit, it was convinced that there was no conflict (especially since all parties waived any potential conflict). Accordingly, the CCA held that the trial judge had violated the defendants' 6th Amendment right to counsel and directed that the judge rescind his order.

Much like the existential question about the tree falling in the forest, if something occurs during a session of court and there’s no court reporter around to hear it (or transcribe it), did it really occur? More importantly, if the losing party wishes to appeal a ruling that took place during the time when the court reporter was not around, can that party prevail? The simple answer, according to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, is NO.

In Davis v. State, the appellant challenged a certain ruling (the granting of a continuance over defense objection), but there was no record of the session of court in which the ruling was made. Accordingly, the appellate court could not determine whether the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion. The appellant asserted that the trial court had a duty to make a record of the hearing and that any deficiency in the record must work against the State as the party that made the motion. Not so, held the CCA, overruling the 5th District Court of Appeals (Dallas).

The CCA explained:

Our case law…imposes an additional, independent burden on the appealing party to make a record demonstrating that [a certain] error occurred in the trial court. This includes a burden to object when the official court reporter is not present, as he is required to be under Rule 13.1, in order to preserve and error that may occur for appeal.

Even though the State had that burden at trial, the appellant, as the appealing party, had an obligation to present a record in the court of appeals that demonstrates he in entitled to appellate relief.

And with that, the CCA overturned the 5th District Court of Appeals, and affirmed appellant's conviction.

Moral of the story for criminal defense lawyers: Always request (under section 52.046 of the Government Code) that a court reporter be present for open sessions of court. You never know what you might want to appeal later. And if for some reason the court reporter isn’t present and you get an adverse ruling, make a later record of it. Give the appellate court something to go on, or else you will certainly lose.  As the CCA put it, "it is the appellant who must bear the consequences of such a definicency in the record."

Note: The CCA mentioned in footnote 19 that it has yet to weigh in on the question discussed in Polasek v. State, 16 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. Ref’d) regarding whether Tex. R. App. P. 13.1 requires a court reporter at all sessions or whether section 52.046(a)(1) trumps. Section 52.046(a)(1) requires the court reporter only when one of the parties makes a request.

Judge Johnson concurred, but it is not clear (to me) why.

A releasee (parolee) is entitled to a prompt preliminary hearing once the revocation process has been initiated by the execution of a revocation warrant. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). Due process, according to the Supreme Court of the United States in Morrissey v. Brewer, requires that a preliminary hearing be held “as promptly as convenient” after a parolee has been arrested to “determine whether there is probable cause or reasonable ground to believe that the arrested parolee has committed acts that would constitute a violation of parole conditions.”

In Ex Parte Bohannan, the applicant (parolee) filed an application for writ of mandamus arguing that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) violated his constitutional rights by failing to hold a preliminary hearing when the State sought to revoke his parole.

While on parole for aggravated rape, applicant was arrested for monitoring violations. However, TDCJ did not hold the required preliminary hearing because it has a standing policy that it does not conduct preliminary hearings while there is a criminal case pending. Once applicant filed for habeas corpus, however, the TDCJ conducted the preliminary hearing. Even though he ultimately received the hearing that he sought, applicant nonetheless requested that the CCA intervene, arguing that his situation is not unique in Texas and that this problem is “capable of repetition, yet evading review” (an exception to the mootness doctrine).

TDCJ, in its brief to the CCA, stated its belief that it need not conduct such a hearing while a criminal case is pending because the court system conducts similar probable cause hearings and a preliminary hearing would only be redundant. In essence, TDCJ was saying they there is no need for them to follow the law.

Ultimately, the CCA held that the case was non-justiciable (moot), so it did not consider the substance of applicant’s claim. However, Judge Keasler, joined by Judges Price, Hervey and Cochran, penned a scathing concurrance wherein it warns the TDCJ that if it continues its policy of not granting preliminary hearings in parole revocation cases, “it does so at its own peril.”

The Supreme Court has not made any exceptions to [the preliminary hearing requirement]. Thus, contrary to the assertion of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), as amicus curiae, such a hearing is not duplicative of any other prior probable cause determination. The failure to comply with Morrissey violates a releasee’s constitutional rights, and our experience with this issue establishes that the Board, pursuant to the policies established by the TDCJ, Parole Division, has violated, and continues to flagrantly violate, clearly established constitutional law. Indeed, TDCJ has admitted as much: “there is no reasonable expectation that the TDCJ will discontinue its policy of not providing a preliminary hearing when a releasee is being held on pending criminal charges . . . .” This is patently unacceptable. And if it “reasonably expects” to continue this policy, it does so at its peril.

The answer for future parolees: MANDAMUS.

Because a claim challenging the Board’s failure to provide a preliminary revocation hearing is non-justiciable, Article 11.07 does not provide an adequate remedy at law for a release to compel the Board to comply with its ministerial duty. But mandamus clearly does. And in response to any future alleged violations on mandamus, as time is of the essence, it may be necessary and appropriate for TDCJ and the Board, through their legal representatives, to appear before us in person to answer any allegation that Morrissey’s mandate is being disobeyed.

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