ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: September 21 – Phone meeting details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

National

TX: Texas Supreme Court to hear sex offender law challenge

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

Related

TX: For some sex offenders, their deal with the state wasn’t really a deal

Join the discussion

  1. Chris f

    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.

    • Hostage in Texas

      Yes. Texas. Land of freedom and independence. Maybe in the early 1800’s. Not now. Dont want to step on any toes, but……….this state is run by the Bible thumping right. No forgiveness. Just punishment.

    • Timmmy

      The title has been updated. “Texas Supreme Court asked to hear sex offender law challenge.” I once had an attorney which said always take cases to the Federal court because those elected judges will never decide in your favor if it means making an unpopular decision which will jeopardize their elected position. This means that court will not be hearing this case.

  2. cool CA RC

    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”

  3. Jack

    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.

  4. Steveo

    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.

  5. kari

    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.

    • CR

      @kari,

      I know about 3:18-cv-629 John Does #1-7 vs Abbott. It has been mentioned here recently. It was John Does #1-153 in the original complaint, I believe. That case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

      What is the other Federal court case you referred to?

      • kari

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
        WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
        AUSTIN DIVISION
        JACK DARRELL HEARN;
        DONNIE LEE MILLER; and,
        JAMES WARWICK JONES
        Plaintiffs
        V. CAUSE NO. 1:18-cv-00504
        VINCENT CASTILLEJA, in his Official
        Capacity as Manager of the Texas
        Department of Public Safety-Sex Offender
        Registration Bureau; and,
        STEVEN McCRAW, in his Official
        Capacity as Director of the Texas
        Department of Public Safety; and,
        Defendants
        PLAINTIFFS’

      • kari

        Hey CR,

        Here is a snap shot of the lawsuit.
        Court Cases to Watch:

        Hearn v. Castilleja

        (Filed by Attorney Richard Gladden)

        U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Hearn v. Castilleja, No. 1:18-cv-00504-LY (filed June 18, 2018). Unlike prior constitutional challenges which have alleged violations of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution (and which have all proved unsuccessful in court), this new lawsuit takes a different legal approach. It contends Texas’ breach of “negotiated plea bargains” entered into prior to 1997, insofar as the plea bargains did not require registration at the time (or limited a person’s duty to register to the length of their community supervision), violates the Substantive Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971).

        • CR

          kari, thank you for that. That’s another case that wasn’t on my radar. I appreciate the heads up.

        • Long chrisy

          Has there been any new news on this article? I can’t find anything. Can anyone else join the lawsuit?

        • Lovewillprevail

          Long Chrisy, the case is moving along but nothing final has happened yet with the court. It appears the plaintiffs might have a chance of winning the case.

  6. TXSO4LIFE

    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/

    • AJ

      @TSSO4LIFE:
      Thanks for posting about this case. I recall reading the Decision a while back and hoping it would be petitioned to SCOTUS, but then forgot all about it. Here’s a link to the Petition, which is worth reading: http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-39/51946/20180702110105142_Boyd%20Cert%20Petition.pdf

      IMO, this case will be a canary in the coal mine for us. It’s a very specific, powerful question to get answered. In-person was one of three prongs in Snyder that made it punitive (school-zone exclusions and offense-based tiers being the other two). I feel if SCOTUS denies cert, it will strengthen the States’ cases around the country and will put a big dent in the leverage of Snyder and Muniz. I fear their denying cert, and dread the outcome of a denial. I won’t be surprised if they kick the can with a CVSG since AWA also requires in-person reporting. If so, it’ll be interesting to see how the USSG addresses it, given his avoidance and dancing in the Snyder amicus (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2017/07/07/16-768_snyder_ac_pet.pdf).

      • TXSO4life

        I agree with your point AJ about the better chance of it being deny of cert. However, given what kavanaugh has been through with his confirmation hearing, I am of optimist that he will be one of votes (crossing fingers) help to grant cert. How he will rule on the matter is another question which i am less optimist. On a side note, here’s another case pending cert grant before scotus …https://www.google.com/amp/www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/eaton-v-united-states/amp/
        for some reasons, this case has been on multiple reschedule conference by scotus since 2017.

        • AJ

          @TXSO4life:
          I wasn’t so much saying I’m of the opinion they will deny cert., I was instead saying I fear the outcome IF they deny cert. I’m hopeful they will take it but really have no opinion.

          That other case (Eaton) being carried over from the previous Term isn’t odd or extraordinary. SCOTUS would have had to have accepted it pretty much right away for it to have been decided by the end of June. I suspect they kept kicking it along in conference because they knew (at least among the Justices) that Kennedy was retiring. Since it wouldn’t be heard until this Term anyway, saving it for the new Justice to vote on would fall in line with how SCOTUS tends to operate. With the U.S. having now responded, it will probably now get voted up or down fair soon.

          I find it interesting and heartening that RC cases are finally percolating all the way back up to SCOTUS. One of them will be our Goldilocks, I’m sure of it.

  7. mike r

    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.”

  8. mike r

    @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

      @mike r:
      “I thought they had to at least go thru the 9th before applying for the writ.”
      —–
      This is a lawsuit in WA State Courts, not Federal Courts. Therefore, the 9th isn’t even involved.
      =====
      As to your question about how long SCOTUS takes to decide to accept or reject, I can only say it takes them as long as it takes them. Heck, they could even kick it to the next Term if need be or so inclined (doubtful).

  9. mike r

    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.

  10. mike r

    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/

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Boyd sued in WA State Court challenging violation of his Federal Constitutional rights. He appealed his case through the WA State Court system, reaching a dead-end in the State Court system when WA SC denied hearing. He is now appealing to the Court of Last Resort for all Federal Claims: SCOTUS. Had Boyd challenged WA under its State Constitution, his appeal process would have ended when WA SC denied.

  11. David

    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.””

    • Will Allen

      Completely agree.

      I do continue to find it funny on an ongoing basis that most people who support the Registries and their criminal regimes really have no clue just what a bunch of stupid douche bags that they are. What they say and do is offensive. Their existence is offensive. I feel sorry for people who know them.

      One great thing that the Registries actually do is allow people to see who zealously supports them and thus is a douche bag that should be avoided like a plague.

  12. Anthony

    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.

  13. mike r

    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?

  14. mike r

    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.

    • CR

      @mike r: — “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.”

      We hope they prevail, but I think it is by no means certain. Apparently a similar claim did not prevail in California. Did you not read where Janice posted earlier today that the California Supreme Court “… ruled that a plea bargain is a contract that can be unilaterally changed by the government, but not the registrant.” https://all4consolaws.org/2018/10/fl-ex-post-facto-lawsuit-filed-fac/comment-page-1

      I don’t know the basis for the CA Supreme Court’s ruling, or if similar reasoning would apply in Texas, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Texas Supreme Court concluded the same.

  15. HopingForHope

    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?

    • CR

      If you read the Texas registration statute ( Chapter 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.62.htm ), you will find that your registration status in the state you are coming from is never mentioned. It is irrelevant to the state of Texas. If you have a reportable conviction or adjudication that meets the criteria spelled out in Chapter 62, you will have to register. This is how most states operate.

      A person who has a “[r]eportable conviction or adjudication … based on” a long list of violations of Texas statutes, OR who meets the following criteria would have to register:

      ============
      (H) a violation of the laws of another state, federal law, the laws of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice for or based on the violation of an offense containing elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense listed under Paragraph (A), (B), (B-1), (C), (D), (E), (G), (J), (K), or (L), but not if the violation results in a deferred adjudication;

      (I) the second violation of the laws of another state, federal law, the laws of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice for or based on the violation of an offense containing elements that are substantially similar to the elements of the offense of indecent exposure, but not if the second violation results in a deferred adjudication;
      ============

      • HopingForHope

        Thank you for this. So, does that mean, depending on your offense, the registration clock starts all over for you when you move to Texas, ie, 10 years, or 15 years, or 20 years, or life, or whatever their tier structure is?

        • AJ

          @HopingForHope:
          Some (Many?) States say the registration period from another State has no bearing on its term, and some say you serve the longer of theirs or your convicting State. However, both of these would seem to fly in the face of the 14th Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and perhaps the fundamental right to Freedom of Travel. If a State imposes different standards on you as a migrant, simply because of your migrant status (i.e. exercising your right to travel) than it would on a similarly situation native, there’s a Constitutional problem. I’m not saying the State won’t try; what I am saying is there’s a strong case a State would lose on it in Federal Court–State Court would probably be a crap shoot.

          There’s currently a Federal Court case in Indiana dealing with something along this line, and I’ll post info about if you wish.

  16. HopingForHope

    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.

    • AJ

      @HopingForHope:
      Here you go: https://ufile.io/sm85d This file was uploaded from a small repository I keep, thus the parenthetical in the filename. The file itself was downloaded from PACER (Fed Court e-Docs), so it’s “clean.”

      Keep in mind this is an ongoing case, and this document is only a preliminary injunction…NOT a decision.
      However, it does address the disparity in treatment between natives and migrants.

      • Chris f (@AJ)

        That is a good case that they should win.

        If they do, anyone convicted of a sex offense before 1995 should move there to get off the registry since at least that state’s judiciary properly recognized the ex post facto issues. Also, those convicted after 95 may also get off registration if their particular offense was not registerable in Indiana at that time.

        Nothing like a good sex offender migration to stir the pot and show how rediculous the differences are between states treatment of those convicted of sex crimes and how the registry probably shouldnt be deamed constitutional in any state.

      • E @ AJ

        Thanks AJ. I had never seen this injunction ruling before. Amazing. I wonder what has become of the case, seeing as that’s about 7 months ago now.

        If won, this could be helpful to those on the WI registry (offense committed there) who no longer live in WI but are required under WI statutes to continue registering there AND in their state of residence indefinitely.

        The WI statutes differentiate people convicted in state vs. out of state (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/301/45). Would you see that as an Equal Protection issue? See 301.45 (5) for “convicted in state”. Then a few years later 301.45 (5m) was added for “convicted in other states”, which says that when someone with an out of state offense moves to WI, they must register in WI, BUT when they move back out of WI they DO NOT remain on the WI registry (my simplified interpretation).

        Also, the WI statute is buried in the DOC section of code… and has NO preamble at all (denying intention to punish)… I’ve wondered how to use that to attack it (though some subsequent cases seem to have commented on that, I believe).

        AJ, Chris f, Mike r and others, what do you see in this? Thanks for your perspective.

        • AJ

          @E:
          “I had never seen this injunction ruling before. Amazing. I wonder what has become of the case, seeing as that’s about 7 months ago now.”
          —–
          I’ve posted this case a few other times on here, mostly in discussion post-Muniz in PA. Yes, the case is ongoing, with no real progress of late–I check on it now and then. Last update was August 10, 2018, but nothing major happened. I don’t know why it’s been sitting dormant so long; perhaps they are in negotiation for a settlement or maybe now they’re hunkered down preparing their cases with the injunction in place. Last I saw, the sheriffs continue to try to get dismissed from the lawsuit, and continue to be denied. I typically don’t dive into the documents that don’t appear useful or aren’t Opinions, as costs can add up in PACER pretty fast. (Opinions are free.)

          On a related note, no movement with Rankin, either. Last action in PACER was Nov 15, 2018.
          =====

          I looked at the WI Statutes from your link, but they started to make my brain hurt. What a horrible and awkward lettering and numbering convention! Do I read it right that someone convicted ex-WI is subject to the lesser of the term of their residency in WI or 10 years? Meanwhile, those convicted in WI are 15 years, or more? How odd that a migrant is treated *better* than a native. Also, where is the section saying you have to register even if you move away?

          Equal Protection would be about the only angle I see, but I’m not sure it has traction. It would seem WI is applying some sort of Full Faith and Credit process, which is also quite odd. What I fear a court would say is that the WI offense and the ex-WI offense are not the same offense. I’ve previously read something along this line in some other court case–how convenient it’s a similar offense for registration, but not otherwise.

          From what I recall from reading some quite dry academic papers, the regulatory extraterritorial jurisdictional (aka Long-Arm stautes, aka horizontal federalism) reach of States (like WI and NY) has never been fully or properly decided. There are a few papers out there about it and they all pretty much say SCOTUS has never been clear on it. (Which to me means it doesn’t want to be.)

          It would *seem* that if a WI/NY POTR moves away and has little or no connection to the State, no WI/NY court would have personal jurisdiction over the POTR. This *should* mean they cannot even issue a warrant. However, given the felony result if one is wrong, it’s an awfully risky proposition to push it…and literally puts you on defense.

          Instead, filing a federal suit, in the District encompassing the capital to establish a valid venue, and maybe pushing either Due Process or the Dormant Commerce Clause may be the route. The latter would work best if a POTR were free from registration outside WI/NY, as then the claim could be made the law is interfering with interstate/international commerce. No matter what, it would be a very tough argument to make.
          =====

          “Also, the WI statute is buried in the DOC section of code… and has NO preamble at all (denying intention to punish)”
          —–
          Inside the criminal code is helpful, but definitely not dispositive. Who administers the program, LE or DMV, DPS, etc? That would help too, though still is not dispositive. As for the lack of preamble, I’m guessing the courts would excuse that and claim the legislative intent is clear from the language (or some similar tripe)–but lack of a preamble does seem to play poorly for WI, esp. with it buried in the criminal code (and even more so if administered by LE). If you can, dig into the legislative history of the laws and see what, if anything, was said in session, committee, or the draft legislation. Some states put this stuff on the web for easy access, some may require a visit to the capital or a law library.

        • E @ AJ

          Thanks AJ. So helpful.

          “Also, where is the section saying you have to register even if you move away?”
          =============
          Nowhere. Literally. It’s just how it’s been interpreted by DOC (which is the agency administering it, your other question). There is no language that says you CAN deregister when leaving the state, so they say you cannot deregister.

          Sick! What makes this quite tough for a POTR is that the two registry schemes we them live under (2 states) are DIFFERENT. I suffer near-PTSD wondering if I’m updating things correctly under two different statutes that require me to give them different information in different timeframes. Ex: WI requires all internet identifiers. My state of residence only requires some, and within a different timeframe than WI. Just one example. Crazy.

          Thanks for your thoughts. The long-arm issue is the biggie, I think, but a weak hook to hang a hat on. This POTR has not resided in WI since the mid 90’s yet I still get and will always get my annual paperwork to fill in…

        • AJ

          @E:
          “There is no language that says you CAN deregister when leaving the state, so they say you cannot deregister.”
          —–
          IIRC, this is the same logic used in NY, but I think there it was formally adjudicated in response to a lawsuit. Perhaps one of our NY POTRs on here can help with that. I get that they rely on the law saying those convicted in WI of such-and-such must register until X time, but at some point they lose authority over someone outside the jurisdiction. If not, what’s to stop them from saying anyone born in WI must do this or that? (I know, a leap, but still….)

          Maybe you can find something in the early sections of WI code that says it applies to all present and/or resident in the State, or something along that line. IOW, see if they somehow limit their own jurisdiction in any manner somewhere in the general code.

          That aside, deregistering is a different act than continuing to register. How exactly to parse that to the satisfaction of a court, IDK. The only examples I can come up with are there’s no requirement to deregister one’s DL, or voter registration, or income tax requirements. The citizen moves and ceases in WI, and starts up in the new State. Perhaps someone else here can chime in on it.

          =====
          Since you’re long gone from WI, the State has no claim of connection anymore. Unfortunately, you may no longer have standing to sue as civil rights cases typically have a statute of limitation, often only 2 years. If you want to dig into it, you may need to file FOIA/Sunshine Law requests with DOC. I’d certainly want something in writing from WI stating their position…including any agency guidance the AG may have provided.

          **Sorry if everything above was a bit scrambled. I was thinking stream-of-consciousness and fear perhaps I jumped around a bit. That happens when I watch sports while posting. 🙂

        • E @ AJ

          AJ, thank you!!!! I’d buy you a beer, brother… I’ll keep mulling on this.

          Your comment on standing would be the ultimate irony. I’ve lost standing because I’m not a resident. But I can’t deregister even as a nonresident. Cue “What a Wonderful World”

        • AJ

          @E:
          “I’ve lost standing because I’m not a resident.”
          —–
          No, if you’ve lost standing it’s due to the passage of time, regardless your WI residency. The limitations are State by State and the Federal courts usually adhere to the standards of the State. Some States it’s as short as 2 years, some may be as much as 7 years.

          =====

          I still think it would be helpful to look into the “header statutes” of the WI Code to see if it mentions anywhere to whom the laws apply. It may be silent on it, but if it in any way constrains it to those present, residents, with commercial connections, etc., it may play to your favor.

          You could also perhaps sue prospectively, that is file suit to get a decision on the reach of the law to your situation prior to your going contrary to it. Were you to pursue such, I think you’d get a fairer shake in Federal Court (even in the anti-RC 7th) than if pursuing in WI State courts.

  17. Trytomoveon

    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?

  18. Chris pecker

    Does anyone know ant updates with this challenge lawsuit?

    • CR

      Hearn et al v. Castilleja et al 1:18-cv-00504 is currently set for bench trial on 08/27/2019. The last activity on this case was when the judge dismissed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgement in March (3/28/2019) and set the trial date.

      I presume the two dismissed motions were from the state, but I can’t read the motions or the related orders. I can only see a summary on pacemonitor.com here (costs $50 per month for full access): https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/24827401/Hearn_et_al_v_Castilleja_et_al

      • AJ

        @CR:
        “I presume the two dismissed motions were from the state, but I can’t read the motions or the related orders.”
        —–
        The Motion to Dismiss was from the State; the Motion for Summary Judgment was from the RC/Plaintiff. That data is readily available on the URL you supplied. You just need to cross-reference the Document numbers (6, 15) to earlier in the posted Docket.

        Here is a URL where you can see the entire court Docket as contained in PACER: https://ufile.io/2213dvlz . If there’s something of particular interest, I may be willing to get it for you (or in TX parlance: all y’all) and post the host URL here. The Complaint (Doc #2) is 22 pages, so only $2.20 to get.

        BTW, you can retrieve up to $15 worth of documents in PACER per quarter before it bills you. That said, it’s quite easy to go over that freebie limit, at which point you get charged from $0 on up. There’s also a 30(?)-page cost limit, meaning one never pays more than $3.00 for any particular document, no matter how many pages beyond 30. Also, Opinions, and I think some other court document, incurs no charges.

        • CR

          @AJ, thank you for the copy of the docket, and for pointing out what should have been obvious to me from the page I referenced.

          No need to download anything on my account. I’m content to wait for the final ruling.

  19. Steveo

    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

  20. Steveo

    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?

  21. Steveo

    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 believe it should also apply to those who have no mention of registration in their plea agreement at all because at the time of their agreement there was no registry, or the law at the time did not require registration for their offense, or because it was a deferred adjudication and the law applied for their offense only in the case of conviction. Those people also relied upon the specific terms of their agreement in exchange for their plea.

      • Steveo

        @CR , You may be right, but the case is being argued on that narrow scope that I mentioned. If it’s won then it might be appealed to in a suit that covers that larger scope that you mentioned.

    • Chris jones

      Steveo how/where did you find out how many defendants had the plea deals limited the registration time?

      • Steveo

        @Chris Jones – From a phone conversation with the lawyer who brought the suit.

        My best guess is that it’s people who went through the system from the 1990 to 1995 range. My case was in 1994, and I am one of the people who would be relieved. If you think you might be, get your probation conditions paperwork and look at it.

        • Chris jones

          My case was deferred adjudication probation in July 1997. I was to only register 10 after my probation end. Completed probation in 2007 and 2017 was supposed to be my last year to register until they changed the law in 2006. My paperwork doesn’t state anytime table but my lawyer told me conditions of my plea deal. And it was in the system that 2017 was my last year to register. It’s all BS. If people know the state can do what they want when they want more people would have considered to take their chances and fight the charges. I know I might have. This law should only affect people who was put the the registration after they law change. It should be unconstitutional to keep punishing people after the held their end of the deal.

        • Steveo

          Chris, here is more information about the case I got off of TexasVoices:
          U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Hearn v. Castilleja, No. 1:18-cv-00504-LY (filed June 18, 2018). Unlike prior constitutional challenges which have alleged violations of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution (and which have all proved unsuccessful in court), this new lawsuit takes a different legal approach. It contends Texas’ breach of “negotiated plea bargains” entered into prior to 1997, insofar as the plea bargains did not require registration at the time (or limited a person’s duty to register to the length of their community supervision), violates the Substantive Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971).

        • Mike G

          I am not in, nor from Texas, though I have visited several times. When I pled ‘no contest’ in 1995, I was not required to register. Six months later, my probation officer told me I had to register immediately or I was going to Jail.
          Since Texas had no qualms about ignoring obvious Ex Post Facto violations, I’m not sure why they would fret over ignoring “negotiated plea bargains”.
          I’m sure most all of us with convictions from that era, if we’d had any inkling of what was to come, would have ignored any “deals” or “promises” and gone for broke with a jury trial.

        • Chris jones

          Steveo, yeah I see that. I remember when I first got on probation my PO said I was lucky my case was done be September 1 1997 cause they had changed some laws but said it only affected people coming on after September 1 1997. I also think everyone that was placed on deferred adjudication probation before 2006 their duty to register had an expiration date. Mine was supposed to end 2017. That’s was the main reason a took it knowing it wasn’t going to be a conviction and I’ll be done with everything by time I’m 38. I was contracting in Iraq before I know they changed the law to lifetime. I never paid attention and wasn’t told anything about it when I left for Iraq in 2008. I planned to work over there a long as possible so when I came back I only had a few years left. Summer 2009 when I found out my status turned to lifetime. Lifetime should only apply to people to plea after the law changed and agree to the lifetime registration. I wish I could join the lawsuit.

        • CR

          @Chris jones: “my PO said I was lucky my case was done be September 1 1997 cause they had changed some laws but said it only affected people coming on after September 1 1997.”

          Just to clarify, the law change in 1997 was mostly prospective, but it also applied to those who, like me, were still under supervision as of the effective date of the law.

          My plea and deferred adjudication was in 1992. I was not required to register at the time, and there is no mention of registration in my plea agreement. I was forced to start registering in late 1997 after the law you mentioned was passed.

          I’m hopeful that the plaintiffs in this case prevail, and that it applies to people like me, too.

  22. Chris jones

    @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.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.