Printer Friendly
The Free Library
4,467,449 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Coleman v. Dretke.


U.S. Appeals Court

PAROLE -- REVOCATION revocation n. 1) mutual cancellation of a contract by the parties to it. 2) withdrawing an offer before it is accepted. ("I revoke my offer"). 3) cancelling a document before it has come into legal effect or been acted upon, as revoking a will. 4) to recall a power or authority previously given as cancelling a power of attorney or cancelling a driver's license due to traffic offenses. (See: contract, will) 

PAROLE -- DUE PROCESS

PAROLE -- CONDITIONS

SEX OFFENDER sex offender n. generic term for all persons convicted of crimes involving sex, including rape, molestation, sexual harassment and pornography production or distribution. In mosst states convicted sex offenders are supposed to report to local police authorities, but many do not. (See: rape, molestation, sexual harassment, pornography) 

Coleman v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2004). A state prisoner who had been indicted for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child, but had been convicted of only misdemeanor assault, challenged the revocation of his parole for his failure to enroll or participate in therapy. The prisoner alleged that the state violated his right to due process by imposing, without advance notice or a hearing, sex offender registration and therapy as conditions of his release. The district court denied his pro se habeas petition and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the state was required to provide procedural due process before imposing sex offender registration and therapy as conditions of release of a prisoner who had never been convicted of a sex crime. The appeals court found that the state's actions were not arbitrary and did not shock the conscience and therefore did not violate the prisoner's substantive due process rights. (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division)
COPYRIGHT 2005 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:due process of law
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:May 1, 2005
Words:183
Previous Article:Ash v. Reilly.(prisoner petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus)(Brief Article)
Next Article:Taylor v. Sebelius.(inmate alleges state of unlawful fees on parolees)(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
Aborting history.(abortion activism)
DOROTHY NOT GUILTY! MOCK TRIAL CLEARS GIRL FROM KANSAS.(News)
MAKING `THE CUT'; PIERCE STUDENT READY TO SING ON MTV SHOW.(L.A. LIFE)
Taking sides: Bush administration weighs in on affirmative action. (In The News).
In response to: "The Visual Artists' Rights Act of 1990", Afterimage 31.4, Jan./Feb. 2004, pp.4-8.(Letters to the Editor)(Letter to the Editor)
From William L. Reynolds.(Letters to the Editor)(Letter to the Editor)
Richards v. Dretke.(DISCIPLINE)(Brief Article)
Richards v. Dretke.(due process of law )(Brief Article)
When arbitration subverts democracy: by blocking access to the courts, mandatory arbitration and separability undermine the rule of law.
Consular notification and access: the "international golden rule".(Legal Digest)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2008 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles