The Texas Supreme Court will consider a challenge to the state’s retroactive sex offender laws that some say unfairly stack new punishments on those convicted in plea deals. Full Article
Texas has always been a lost cause. Our elected judges dont care about the US or Texas constitutioms if it gets in the way of re election or offends their church friends.
Texas is one of the few states where the constitution forbids BOTH punitive and civil retro laws but they still say its ok for sex offenders.
Texas has a majority of scotus cases because its state courts rule against the constitution all the time. They also won’t change due to a scotus ruling. Brown v board of education was ignored for 10 years until congress made a law. Horrible state I live in but at least it isn’t Florida.
cool CA RC
Guest
October 8, 2018 2:17 pm
Didn’t they try this in California and RC lost?
I think the court ruled “State of California” can do whatever they want.
I think I read something like “If this was a murder not a sex case we would have won”
Jack
Guest
October 8, 2018 2:37 pm
Well I don’t want to get anybody’s hopes down but, I think we all know how this one’s going to turn out.
Steveo
Guest
October 8, 2018 7:58 pm
So I live in Texas. I took a plea deal for 10 years differed adjudication in January of 1994. I’m guessing that this will affect me. I hope it goes well.
kari
Guest
October 8, 2018 9:24 pm
Hey Steve,
Yes, you are correct if this is a win you will no longer have to register.
Also there is two other federal lawsuits in the works.
This is cruel and unusual punishment, not just punishment and I wish he would of included that already.
“During the week of December 24, 2014, for
example, the sheriff’s “Transient Tracking” sheet
shows that Mr. Boyd slept in the following locations:
“Hwy 9” on Monday; “Concrete apt. #3 behind
bakery”2 on Tuesday; “McLaughlin M.V.” on
Wednesday; “Lafayette mom’s” on Thursday; “Bro
Casey Hwy 9” on Friday; and “Concrete fishing” on
Saturday and Sunday. App. 5 n.1.”
45 Frigging months, absolutely cruel and unusual to subject a anyone, let alone a homeless individual, to these impossible to comply with, arduous and onerous reporting requirements. Nothing in our recent or even in the history of this country has this type of in-person reporting requirements where you face prison for not providing info to LE on a fixed schedule while not on supervised release. Absolutely unusual and it raises to the bar of cruel as well…People are out of their frigging minds I tell ya…
“After he failed to check in between January
27, 2015 and February 10, 2015, the State charged
Petitioner with failure to register as a sex offender.
App. 5. Mr. Boyd was convicted as charged and
sentenced to 45 months in prison. Id.”
mike r
Guest
October 10, 2018 2:51 pm
@TSSO4LIFE. Yeah, that is a serious case for me. I did not know that was out there. Man I thought they had to at least go thru the 9th before applying for the writ. Learn something new every day. This is incredibly relevant AJ. So I cannot believe the Washington SC denied, I thought they shot down the old version of the registry which in turn the 9th shot it down and then SCOTUS overruled. It seems they would really be down on this. This is ruthless in-person reporting. I am not liking that it does not go into the entire registry with all the effects or the recidivism challenge along with the fact SCOTUS was duped in McKune. Be interested to read everything on this case.@>>AJ ????????
Really important to my case. Here is the significance: if they accept it and uphold the law then I may still stand a chance with everything else in my complaint, but it would make it extremely harder that is for sure. If they take it and shoot down the law and name it punishment my case is a done deal. If they reject, IDK, I know it makes it harder for me but it would not necessarily be the end of it with all the other elements that I am bringing and the record that I am creating. I still believe the recidivism gov reports as judicial notice and laying out how the court was duped is going to carry a heavy weight regardless of anything else. This is serious any way it goes……
mike r
Guest
October 10, 2018 3:10 pm
AJ once again, how long does it usually take to decide to accept or reject the writ? I see the state still has to respond, and petitioner gets to respond back I believe, but this is going to happen pretty fast I would think. Wow, I wonder if this is already having some kind of effect on my cases time line, like if they are waiting to see what happens here.
I found this last paragraph especially annoying because the entire point of the lawsuit is that these individuals might NOT have ANY duty to register.
Therefore, they are not being “relieved” of any Duty to register because no Duty existed to begin with!! TPSD attorneys make it sound as if the plaintiff are being given something or receiving some special benefit they’re not entitled to. That is not the case!:
“Texas Department of Public Safety attorneys warn the lawsuit could relieve many “other sex offenders of their duty to register.””
Anthony
Guest
October 12, 2018 9:32 am
The very fact that every plea bargain entered before the 2003 U S Supreme Court ruling allowing retroactive sex offender registration on parole or completed sentences was breached because the premise was that is was to be civil and protect society in which is not the case at all. The statutes on the books in all states and federal jurisdiction is punitive and no evidence clear and convincingly show that the registry protects children at all. The Texas Supreme Court will hear the facts laid out to prove that the retroactive application did breach all prior plea bargains not just probationers and give all relief to those be off the registry or overturn all the old sex offender convictions that predates any statutes.
mike r
Guest
October 12, 2018 3:45 pm
That is a big “if” the Washington SC denied his Washington constitutional claims. So your telling me he did not include the Washington state constitutional violations as well? WTFFFF? Why would you just challenge the federal violations in state court. That is idiotic to me. Why do all that state court instead of just taking the federal claims straight to the federal courts. I do not presume the state court considers state constitutional violations unless specifically included in the complaint, right? Complete waste of time when you know it is just going to go straight to federal court. Even if the state court granted relief he would still have to go thru federal court because of the federal violations I believe. If that happens then that state SC court decision would be useless, right? It is only SCOTUS who can decide federal violations and any state court (including state SC) has to follow SCOTUS in that case, right? IDK it just seems strange to me to file federal constitutional violations in state court. State constitution in state court, federal constitution in federal court. That is what I always thought. I understand either court can consider either constitution, but you have to specifically ask them which ones and under what violations. Why would you not go state constitution in state court because if they decide to shoot the law down on state constitutional grounds then it does not matter what SCOTUS states, its stands in that state. You pretty much get two shots at state constitution, one in state courts and then in federal courts. Going to make it a little harder to go back and refile on state issues in state court again, buy whatever… Believe me if I lose in the federal courts on the federal constitutional grounds I can go ahead and refile in state courts on state grounds. I guess he can as well, but should of just file on state grounds as well to begin with. Just like if I would have known that a case goes directly to SCOTUS after state then I would definitely have filed in state court to begin with but I would have included both state and federal violations. I wish I had anyways. Just do them both at once and cut through the BS. Am I right on this?
mike r
Guest
October 12, 2018 4:28 pm
This Texas case is pretty interesting though… Is this Texas case just on the narrow contract clause issue or is it claiming the retroactive punishment issue as well? I have not read the case but from the following statement it appears it may just be on a contract clause, or whatever clause keeps them from changing a plea deal. They state specifically in the article that
“Every qualifying sex offender was ordered onto the registry in 2005 after Texas expanded its sex offense laws. >>But that included some defendants who were promised in deals with prosecutors that they wouldn’t have to be on the list after a certain amount of time.”<<
It seems as though they will prevail on the plea agreements deal. That is a contract with the state and every provision is just that, a provision that was agreed to. Blatant violation of a contractual agreement. This is what I was saying about us being forced into a contract with the state against our will, under color of law, and under threat of extreme punishment, coercion, and duress. I think this is an issue worth exploring and with merit. I already know I will file if I lose on every thing else.
HopingForHope
Guest
January 3, 2019 9:38 am
Does anyone know: If you are no longer required to register in your current state, then move to Texas, are you subject to registration laws as a new resident of Texas?
HopingForHope
Guest
January 4, 2019 3:13 pm
AJ- Yes, please do so. Thank you for your help with this. We’re fortunate to have so many informed participants on this forum. Reading statutes is like reading Greek if you are totally non-lawyerly, like me.
Trytomoveon
Guest
February 4, 2019 9:01 am
Does anyone know if there is any new news on the Texas SC on retroactive SOR and the plea bargain deals that had a limit on registration time?
Chris pecker
Guest
April 30, 2019 12:19 pm
Does anyone know ant updates with this challenge lawsuit?
Steveo
Guest
May 1, 2019 5:10 pm
Ok, so I’m a bit confused by these responses referencing this Hearn et al v. Castilleja case out in West Texas. This supreme court case this thread was started about is based on a case from a guy named Curtis and another guy named Donnie Miller. Here is a media link with info on the Texas Supreme Court case: https://www.statesman.com/news/20181006/texas-reneging-states-expansion-of-sex-offender-laws-challenged
Steveo
Guest
May 1, 2019 9:27 pm
Ok, so now I am really confused. I have been searching for this information that the Texas Supreme court has taken up the case for a sex offender law challenge, and I ran across this AP article saying that it’s been corrected, and that they haven’t decided to take it up. https://www.apnews.com/42520516593347c5b659c6b580ea458f
So is it something we’re waiting for a ruling on or not?
Steveo
Guest
August 2, 2019 7:05 pm
Hearn v. Castilleja will be heard on August 27th at the Federal Court House in Austin. This is the suit that will potentially relieve about 3800 registrants in Texas. This is a suit that claims that essentially a contract was broken for those people who’s conditions of probation stated that they would have to register for the term of that probation, but that the requirement to register would expire when their probation expired.
This case is one that should be a pretty clear win. Once it’s won it’s my understanding that there will be an appeal and it will be about another year, and it will go before the 5th circuit court of appeals. If it’s won there, Texas will either relieve those 3800 people, or be potentially sued 3800 times.
Chris jones
Guest
August 12, 2019 2:13 pm
@CR I feel your pain. It’s been 27 since your crime. That’s enough time. Mine has been 22 years. That’s enough time. It’s not right that the states gets to keep playing with people’s lives. I definitely didn’t sign up for lifetime registration. I was never convicted of the crime so why do I have to treated as I have. Everyone that had Expiration date on the registration before 2006 law change needs to have the opportunity to get off as long as they haven’t committed any other sex crimes. Deferred adjudication probation was supposed to give people a second chance. It’s time for the state to honor their plea deals.
Steveo
Guest
August 29, 2019 6:21 pm
@ChrisJones : Sorry, I do not know of a link to any audio or anything from the hearing. I’ll let you know as soon as I hear something. Better yet, if you or anyone else that sees this is a registered citizen in the state of Texas, then you should sign up and ask to get on the mailing list of Texas Voices so that you will get any news are be a part of any efforts in Texas to help. Here is a link: https://texasvoices.org/
Chris Jones
Guest
October 1, 2019 1:02 pm
CR. I’m wondering the same thing. Hopefully Richard Gladden will have some great news to post soon.
Steveo
Guest
November 20, 2019 12:28 pm
Per the: Hearn et al v. McCraw et al case…..
……
It looks like they’ve been busy. You’re welcome to create a free account on the Pacer system and look up the goings on yourself. I am certainly no lawyer, but the motions and counter motions have been flying for weeks. It looks like that it’s all somehow wound up in another judges court (Judge Mark Lane) , and that there is an important hearing tomorrow (Nov 21st), so if your a person who prays, then pray for that. I can’t say how things are going, but motions to dismiss, and disallow things by the Plaintiffs (the bad guys) have been denied by the judges. It looks like yesterday (11/19) that they asked for more time for discovery, but that motion was “no-longer referred”, because the judge had rendered it “moot”. So anyway, keep hanging in there.
Texas has always been a lost cause. Our elected judges dont care about the US or Texas constitutioms if it gets in the way of re election or offends their church friends.
Texas is one of the few states where the constitution forbids BOTH punitive and civil retro laws but they still say its ok for sex offenders.
Texas has a majority of scotus cases because its state courts rule against the constitution all the time. They also won’t change due to a scotus ruling. Brown v board of education was ignored for 10 years until congress made a law. Horrible state I live in but at least it isn’t Florida.
Didn’t they try this in California and RC lost?
I think the court ruled “State of California” can do whatever they want.
I think I read something like “If this was a murder not a sex case we would have won”
Well I don’t want to get anybody’s hopes down but, I think we all know how this one’s going to turn out.
So I live in Texas. I took a plea deal for 10 years differed adjudication in January of 1994. I’m guessing that this will affect me. I hope it goes well.
Hey Steve,
Yes, you are correct if this is a win you will no longer have to register.
Also there is two other federal lawsuits in the works.
Here’s a new SO case (expos facto claim / in person requirements) to keep an eyes on. It’s currently pending cert before US Supreme Court. Hope the Court grant cert on that one http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/boyd-v-washington/
This is cruel and unusual punishment, not just punishment and I wish he would of included that already.
“During the week of December 24, 2014, for
example, the sheriff’s “Transient Tracking” sheet
shows that Mr. Boyd slept in the following locations:
“Hwy 9” on Monday; “Concrete apt. #3 behind
bakery”2 on Tuesday; “McLaughlin M.V.” on
Wednesday; “Lafayette mom’s” on Thursday; “Bro
Casey Hwy 9” on Friday; and “Concrete fishing” on
Saturday and Sunday. App. 5 n.1.”
45 Frigging months, absolutely cruel and unusual to subject a anyone, let alone a homeless individual, to these impossible to comply with, arduous and onerous reporting requirements. Nothing in our recent or even in the history of this country has this type of in-person reporting requirements where you face prison for not providing info to LE on a fixed schedule while not on supervised release. Absolutely unusual and it raises to the bar of cruel as well…People are out of their frigging minds I tell ya…
“After he failed to check in between January
27, 2015 and February 10, 2015, the State charged
Petitioner with failure to register as a sex offender.
App. 5. Mr. Boyd was convicted as charged and
sentenced to 45 months in prison. Id.”
@TSSO4LIFE. Yeah, that is a serious case for me. I did not know that was out there. Man I thought they had to at least go thru the 9th before applying for the writ. Learn something new every day. This is incredibly relevant AJ. So I cannot believe the Washington SC denied, I thought they shot down the old version of the registry which in turn the 9th shot it down and then SCOTUS overruled. It seems they would really be down on this. This is ruthless in-person reporting. I am not liking that it does not go into the entire registry with all the effects or the recidivism challenge along with the fact SCOTUS was duped in McKune. Be interested to read everything on this case.@>>AJ ????????
Really important to my case. Here is the significance: if they accept it and uphold the law then I may still stand a chance with everything else in my complaint, but it would make it extremely harder that is for sure. If they take it and shoot down the law and name it punishment my case is a done deal. If they reject, IDK, I know it makes it harder for me but it would not necessarily be the end of it with all the other elements that I am bringing and the record that I am creating. I still believe the recidivism gov reports as judicial notice and laying out how the court was duped is going to carry a heavy weight regardless of anything else. This is serious any way it goes……
AJ once again, how long does it usually take to decide to accept or reject the writ? I see the state still has to respond, and petitioner gets to respond back I believe, but this is going to happen pretty fast I would think. Wow, I wonder if this is already having some kind of effect on my cases time line, like if they are waiting to see what happens here.
Wait a minute, why is this on the SCOTUS blog?
Then it states “In the Supreme Court of the United States”
Are we talking about the same case? Am I missing something?
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/boyd-v-washington/
Here’s more media covetage:
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Texas-Supreme-Court-to-Hear-Sex-Offender-Law-Challenge-495963971.html?amp=y
I found this last paragraph especially annoying because the entire point of the lawsuit is that these individuals might NOT have ANY duty to register.
Therefore, they are not being “relieved” of any Duty to register because no Duty existed to begin with!! TPSD attorneys make it sound as if the plaintiff are being given something or receiving some special benefit they’re not entitled to. That is not the case!:
“Texas Department of Public Safety attorneys warn the lawsuit could relieve many “other sex offenders of their duty to register.””
The very fact that every plea bargain entered before the 2003 U S Supreme Court ruling allowing retroactive sex offender registration on parole or completed sentences was breached because the premise was that is was to be civil and protect society in which is not the case at all. The statutes on the books in all states and federal jurisdiction is punitive and no evidence clear and convincingly show that the registry protects children at all. The Texas Supreme Court will hear the facts laid out to prove that the retroactive application did breach all prior plea bargains not just probationers and give all relief to those be off the registry or overturn all the old sex offender convictions that predates any statutes.
That is a big “if” the Washington SC denied his Washington constitutional claims. So your telling me he did not include the Washington state constitutional violations as well? WTFFFF? Why would you just challenge the federal violations in state court. That is idiotic to me. Why do all that state court instead of just taking the federal claims straight to the federal courts. I do not presume the state court considers state constitutional violations unless specifically included in the complaint, right? Complete waste of time when you know it is just going to go straight to federal court. Even if the state court granted relief he would still have to go thru federal court because of the federal violations I believe. If that happens then that state SC court decision would be useless, right? It is only SCOTUS who can decide federal violations and any state court (including state SC) has to follow SCOTUS in that case, right? IDK it just seems strange to me to file federal constitutional violations in state court. State constitution in state court, federal constitution in federal court. That is what I always thought. I understand either court can consider either constitution, but you have to specifically ask them which ones and under what violations. Why would you not go state constitution in state court because if they decide to shoot the law down on state constitutional grounds then it does not matter what SCOTUS states, its stands in that state. You pretty much get two shots at state constitution, one in state courts and then in federal courts. Going to make it a little harder to go back and refile on state issues in state court again, buy whatever… Believe me if I lose in the federal courts on the federal constitutional grounds I can go ahead and refile in state courts on state grounds. I guess he can as well, but should of just file on state grounds as well to begin with. Just like if I would have known that a case goes directly to SCOTUS after state then I would definitely have filed in state court to begin with but I would have included both state and federal violations. I wish I had anyways. Just do them both at once and cut through the BS. Am I right on this?
This Texas case is pretty interesting though… Is this Texas case just on the narrow contract clause issue or is it claiming the retroactive punishment issue as well? I have not read the case but from the following statement it appears it may just be on a contract clause, or whatever clause keeps them from changing a plea deal. They state specifically in the article that
“Every qualifying sex offender was ordered onto the registry in 2005 after Texas expanded its sex offense laws. >>But that included some defendants who were promised in deals with prosecutors that they wouldn’t have to be on the list after a certain amount of time.”<<
It seems as though they will prevail on the plea agreements deal. That is a contract with the state and every provision is just that, a provision that was agreed to. Blatant violation of a contractual agreement. This is what I was saying about us being forced into a contract with the state against our will, under color of law, and under threat of extreme punishment, coercion, and duress. I think this is an issue worth exploring and with merit. I already know I will file if I lose on every thing else.
Does anyone know: If you are no longer required to register in your current state, then move to Texas, are you subject to registration laws as a new resident of Texas?
AJ- Yes, please do so. Thank you for your help with this. We’re fortunate to have so many informed participants on this forum. Reading statutes is like reading Greek if you are totally non-lawyerly, like me.
Does anyone know if there is any new news on the Texas SC on retroactive SOR and the plea bargain deals that had a limit on registration time?
Does anyone know ant updates with this challenge lawsuit?
Ok, so I’m a bit confused by these responses referencing this Hearn et al v. Castilleja case out in West Texas. This supreme court case this thread was started about is based on a case from a guy named Curtis and another guy named Donnie Miller. Here is a media link with info on the Texas Supreme Court case: https://www.statesman.com/news/20181006/texas-reneging-states-expansion-of-sex-offender-laws-challenged
Ok, so now I am really confused. I have been searching for this information that the Texas Supreme court has taken up the case for a sex offender law challenge, and I ran across this AP article saying that it’s been corrected, and that they haven’t decided to take it up. https://www.apnews.com/42520516593347c5b659c6b580ea458f
So is it something we’re waiting for a ruling on or not?
Hearn v. Castilleja will be heard on August 27th at the Federal Court House in Austin. This is the suit that will potentially relieve about 3800 registrants in Texas. This is a suit that claims that essentially a contract was broken for those people who’s conditions of probation stated that they would have to register for the term of that probation, but that the requirement to register would expire when their probation expired.
This case is one that should be a pretty clear win. Once it’s won it’s my understanding that there will be an appeal and it will be about another year, and it will go before the 5th circuit court of appeals. If it’s won there, Texas will either relieve those 3800 people, or be potentially sued 3800 times.
@CR I feel your pain. It’s been 27 since your crime. That’s enough time. Mine has been 22 years. That’s enough time. It’s not right that the states gets to keep playing with people’s lives. I definitely didn’t sign up for lifetime registration. I was never convicted of the crime so why do I have to treated as I have. Everyone that had Expiration date on the registration before 2006 law change needs to have the opportunity to get off as long as they haven’t committed any other sex crimes. Deferred adjudication probation was supposed to give people a second chance. It’s time for the state to honor their plea deals.
@ChrisJones : Sorry, I do not know of a link to any audio or anything from the hearing. I’ll let you know as soon as I hear something. Better yet, if you or anyone else that sees this is a registered citizen in the state of Texas, then you should sign up and ask to get on the mailing list of Texas Voices so that you will get any news are be a part of any efforts in Texas to help. Here is a link: https://texasvoices.org/
CR. I’m wondering the same thing. Hopefully Richard Gladden will have some great news to post soon.
Per the: Hearn et al v. McCraw et al case…..
……
It looks like they’ve been busy. You’re welcome to create a free account on the Pacer system and look up the goings on yourself. I am certainly no lawyer, but the motions and counter motions have been flying for weeks. It looks like that it’s all somehow wound up in another judges court (Judge Mark Lane) , and that there is an important hearing tomorrow (Nov 21st), so if your a person who prays, then pray for that. I can’t say how things are going, but motions to dismiss, and disallow things by the Plaintiffs (the bad guys) have been denied by the judges. It looks like yesterday (11/19) that they asked for more time for discovery, but that motion was “no-longer referred”, because the judge had rendered it “moot”. So anyway, keep hanging in there.