Ex Parte Warren
353 S.W.3d 490
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Warren was convicted in 1987 of Injury to a Child and sentenced to 37 years' imprisonment.
- He was released to mandatory supervision parole in 1999 and later subjected to sex-offender special conditions M and X by TDCJ based on Illinois offenses.
- TDCJ attributed the conditions to four counts of Contributing to the Sexual Delinquency of a Child in Chicago, Illinois, in 1972, with related sentencing.
- Warren was not given notice or a hearing before the imposition of the sex-offender conditions.
- In 2008, Warren's parole was revoked for violating computer and photographic equipment rules; investigators found a webcam and nude images.
- On habeas review, the court examined whether Warren had prior Illinois convictions corroborated by DPS CCH records and FBI Final Disposition reports to justify the conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of the Illinois convictions? | Warren contends evidence fails to prove Illinois convictions. | TDCJ asserts the CCH and FBI reports corroborate the Illinois convictions. | Evidence sufficiently establishes prior Illinois sex-offense convictions. |
| Substantial similarity of Illinois offense to Texas offense? | Illinois offense is not substantially similar to Texas' Indecency with a Child. | Illinois offense is substantially similar to Indecency with a Child under Texas law. | Illinois Contributing to the Sexual Delinquency of a Child is substantially similar to Texas Indecency with a Child. |
| Due process before imposing sex-offender conditions? | Warren was entitled to notice and a hearing under due process. | Because Warren had prior convictions, no Coleman-type due process was required. | Warren had no entitlement to procedural due process for the imposition of sex-offender conditions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meza v. Livingston, 607 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2010) (later-defined due-process before imposing conditions for those with no prior sex offense)
- Ex parte Evans, 338 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (adopted Fifth Circuit framework for procedural due process)
- Coleman v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2004) (role of prior conviction in due process before imposing conditions)
- Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (CCH corroboration sufficiency for proving prior convictions)
- Prudholm v. State, 333 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (test for substantial similarity of state offenses)