Tout, James Emil
WR-83,995-01
| Tex. App. | Oct 12, 2015Background
- Relator James Emil Tout is a parolee on the Texas sex offender caseload, released in 2012 after an eight-year DWI sentence.
- In July 2015, Tout received notice of a parole-violation based on invoking his Fifth Amendment rights regarding a polygraph; a hearing followed and the hearing officer found no violation.
- Tout again invoked his Fifth Amendment rights at a scheduled polygraph, and the Division sought to revoke parole as punishment for that invocation.
- On September 2, 2015, the Board ordered confinement in an Intermediate Sanction Facility (ISF); Tout is confined at West Texas ISF in Brownfield.
- Tout filed a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07, §3, Cr.P. on October 6, 2015, which remains pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tout has an adequate legal remedy besides mandamus | Tout has no adequate remedy at law | Respondents argue adequate remedies exist via habeas corpus or direct appeal | Relief granted only if no adequate remedy at law |
| Whether the ISF confinement is a ministerial act entitling mandamus relief | Tout has a clear right to relief due to Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment rights | Discretion allowed in parole supervision decisions | Yes; confinement reversal is ministerial given constitutional violation |
| Whether punishing for invoking the Fifth Amendment violates due process | Punishment for silence violates Morrissey, Minnesota v. Murphy, and related authorities | Parole revocation procedures permit sanctions for noncompliance | Violations of due process when sanctions punish exercise of right to remain silent |
| Whether mandamus relief is the appropriate remedy given potential repetition and delay in habeas | Habeas is inadequate due to time limits and likelihood of repetition | Habeas could address future issues | Mandamus/prohibition appropriate to prevent ongoing constitutional violations |
| Whether a published Dansby line of authority supports relief | Dansby decisions show Fifth Amendment protections apply to parolees | Dansby precedent is distinguishable or not controlling | Dansby framework supports relief against compelled polygraph participation |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due process protections in parole revocation)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (parole/probation due process procedures)
- Dansby v. State, 448 S.W.3d 441 (Tex.Cr.App. 2014), 448 S.W.3d 441 (Tex.Cr.App. 2014) (Fifth Amendment rights in sex-offender treatment context)
- In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex.Cr.App. 2014), 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex.Cr.App. 2014) (ministerial act standard for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex.Cr.App. 2013), 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex.Cr.App. 2013) (remedies and ministerial-act standards in mandamus analysis)
- Hill v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex.Cr.App. 2001), 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex.Cr.App. 2001) (adequacy of legal remedies for mandamus)
- Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex.Cr.App. 2011), 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex.Cr.App. 2011) (habeas vs. mandamus remedies)
- Texas Dept. of Corrections v. Dalehite, 623 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981), 623 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.Cr.App. 1981) (ministerial duty and discrete legal obligations)