I've thankfully never had to deal with any Ch. 62 cases before, but now have one I have a feeling's going to be a problem. We have a post-conviction writ case on a guy who plead to 2 years on a failure to register charge (and is now claiming ineffective assistance, etc.). Basically, he WAS required to register, but only as a parole condition in a robbery case (there's apparently some weird story as to the reason why on that). He has none of the applicable reportable convictions under 62.01(5). Apparently everyone on both sides of the trial end of things eventually agreed this was a valid charge, based on a reading of 62.02(a) ("A person who has a reportable conviction or adjudication or is required to register as a condition of parole...shall register...with the local law enforcement authority...").
It wouldn't seem to me that the statute envisions someone who's required to register as a condition of parole getting anything other than a parole violation in this scenario, but before I admit to that in my answer, I thought I'd try soliciting other opinions/points of view from folks who hopefully have a little more experience with the statute. Thanks!
I have no experience with this problem. But, I agree there may be a problem. It appears to me your defendant violated 62.10(a) because he was "a person who [was] required to register" under 62.02(a). It also seems that 62.12 fails to address when such person's duty to register expires (although presumably it ends once the parole conditions expire) and that this may make 62.10(b) meaningless. I believe I would argue, however, that the Legislature intended 62.12(b) to apply (even though "reportable conviction" may need a broader definition than that in 62.01(5) in this instance). It appears the Legislature did not envision the inclusion of compliance with Chapter 62 as a part of parole except for reportable convictions (weird stories or not).
I and my colleagues have looked at this in the past. The best the collective wisdom of our office could come up with is that the violation is of parole and not the statute.
Posts: 723 | Location: Fort Worth, TX, USA | Registered: July 30, 2002
It doesn't make any sense to me that registration should end when parole ends, if probationers are required to register for 10 years past the end of probation (if they are not life time registrees). I have no problem with parolees getting more time for a new offense as well as a revocation if they fail to register while on parole. After all, one of the other conditions is that they commit no new offenses, right? If the system is meant to protect citizens from persons who may be dangerous, we have to make sure there is some new penalty for failing to register.
Posts: 2137 | Location: McKinney, Texas, USA | Registered: February 15, 2001
