Printer Friendly

Coleman v. Dretke.

U.S. Appeals Court

PAROLE -- REVOCATION

PAROLE -- DUE PROCESS

PAROLE -- CONDITIONS

SEX OFFENDER

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.

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.
Next Article:Taylor v. Sebelius.
Topics:


Related Articles
DOROTHY NOT GUILTY! MOCK TRIAL CLEARS GIRL FROM KANSAS.
MAKING `THE CUT'; PIERCE STUDENT READY TO SING ON MTV SHOW.
Taking sides: Bush administration weighs in on affirmative action. (In The News).
Richards v. Dretke.
Richards v. Dretke.
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".

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters