Now that I've found this place ... here's another enigmatic question possibly brought about by Legislative snafu. (Is that an oximoron?)

Way old offense -- D convicted of two separate sexual abuse of child offenses under sec. 21.10 of the 1981 penal code (w/ intent to arouse, etc., b/c he engaged in deviate sexual intercourse w/ child under 17). D given probation (mom did not want 2 kids to testify). D changed his name and fled for over 11 yrs. Revocation filed. D finally arrested. D's probation revoked, but D out on appeal bond. Bond includes "comply with sex offender registration procedures as required by the laws of this state. D registers as sex offender and checks off indecency with child by contact as offense committed. Meanwhile, COA busts revocation on due diligence grounds; State PDR pending (other cases granted on similar grounds - getting rid of due diligence). D still on appeal bond and registered in Tarrant Co., and probation officer finds out D is actually living in Harris County and keeping trailer here as subterfuge.

Questions:
1)Was D required to report? Condition says to report as required by law, but is the 1981 crime a reportable offense? Not under enumerated under 62.01(5) and the catch-all phrases in (5)(J) and also 62.0101(a) refer to crimes with similar elements from OTHER jurisdictions.

2) Assuming that he was required to report (and, of course, he did report), is there a crime under 62.10 (failure to comply w/ registration rqmts) b/c he is not living in the county where he's reporting, but in another county where he's not registered?

3) If D committed a 62.10 offense, which range of punishment applies? The punishment categories are defined by when the duty to register expires which is, in turn, dependant on the type of underlying offense. As with 62.01, Section 21.10 of the 1981 penal code isn't on the list.

4) Revoking his appeal bond is also an option (unless you find that he wasn't required to report under the laws of the state). Unfortunately, there is no bond provision about remaining in the county.

5) Could he be popped for tampering with a governmental record (SJF b/c of intent to defraud) or is this in pari material with offense in 62.10?

This is a bad kiddie-diddler who has lucked out for two decades and spent less than a full day in jail and apparently feels he can ignore court orders with impunity. Any suggestions (besides telling the next session of the Lege that they need to amend the catch-all sections to include offenses in this state with substantially similar elements). Thanks for reading this sucker -- I know it's a long one.

Okay, I posted this a while back. I realize that the facts sounds as twisted as something out of a law school exam, but I'd love to hear from someone who's run into whether an older offense is reportable or not, even sans the appeal-bond issue. Rob, will you dust off your reporting statute and look at this one? Thanks!!!

If the principle that "one who lists specific things after referring to a general, undefined category intends to restrict the scope of the category to the type of things contained in the list," 21 S.W.3d 767, 773, means anything, I think you rightly point out that "reportable conviction or adjudication" as used in 62.01 (5)(A) and 62.02 (a) does not include a conviction under old 21.10 (even though it would now be a conviction under 21.11 or 22.021). I agree that if the intent of the legislature in going back to September 1, 1970 expressed in 62.11 is to be followed, then either (5)(A) or (J),and (6)(A) or (E), need to be amended. But until they are, Mr. Diddler has not failed to comply with 62.02. I even thought about the language "person for whom registration is completed" in 62.02 (d) as maybe drawing him in, but that language is obviously a reference to 62.03(a)(4). Clearly if 62.02 were applicable to him, he must register where he resides for 7 days and registration somewhere else doesn't save him from liability under 62.10(a), though it creates a fact issue as to the place of residence. The expiration of the duty to register is a complete quagmire. 62.12 must be amended to make any sense (especially as to persons who are never placed on community supervision). But, clearly Diddler has not yet gone 10 years past the date he discharged community supervision (assuming that date has already come). Maybe I've missed something, but that's my best guess.

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 12-07-01 at .]