EX Parte Evans
338 S.W.3d 545
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Evans pled guilty to two counts of reckless injury to a child; no sex-offense conviction.
- Released to mandatory supervision parole in 2006 with SISP conditions; later removed from SISP conditions after 17 months.
- Parole officer in El Paso imposed Special Condition X (sex-offender conditions) based on a notice in April 2008.
- Evans challenged imposition of Special Condition X as due process violation; revocation hearing followed in November 2008.
- Habeas court found Evans not convicted of a sex offense, lack of sexual-abuse evidence, and lack of due process before imposing Special Condition X; court recommended relief; appellate court granted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process is required before imposing sex-offender conditions on a parolee not convicted of a sex offense. | Evans; Meza framework requires due process. | TDCJ; Meza does not apply to discretionary mandatory supervision. | Meza applies; due process required; relief granted. |
| Whether Meza’s due-process requirements extend to discretionary mandatory supervision parolees. | Parolees deserve Meza protections; greater process due. | Meza limited to certain release contexts. | Meza protections extend to this parolee case; extended protections required. |
| Whether Evans’ revocation was based solely on Special Condition X violations and thus tainted by improper imposition. | Revocation tied to sex-offender conditions imposed without due process. | Violations were under Special Condition X and not separate sex-offense processes. | Revocation rooted in improper Special Condition X; due process required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meza v. Livingston, 607 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2010) (parolees not convicted of a sex offense entitled to Meza-level due process before sex-offender conditions)
- Coleman v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2004) (parole may condition on sex-offender issues only with due process finding)
- Ex parte Campbell, 267 S.W.3d 916 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (state’s minimal notice/hearing standard for sex-offender conditions on releasees)
- Ex parte Geiken, 28 S.W.3d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (mandatory supervision reforms and due process context)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (parole revocation due process standards)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1974) (inmate disciplinary proceedings due process protections)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1979) (parole decision-making and notice/hearing requirements)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1980) (due process rights in liberty-deprivation contexts)