14 results for 'cat:"Parole" AND cat:"Sex Offender"'.
J. Reiber finds that the lower court improperly granted summary judgment to the state in this concurrent sentence for murder and sexual assault against a former convict, who had served the maximum sentence for his sex offense, but remained on parole. The Vermont Supreme Court concludes the summary judgment was inappropriate and remands for further proceedings regarding the unresolved legal and factual questions of the plaintiff’s parole and sex offense. Reversed.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court, Judge: Reiber, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 22-AP-274, Categories: parole, Sentencing, sex Offender
J. Gabriel finds that Colorado's sex offender sentencing scheme allows parole boards to consider a juvenile defendant's maturity, although the statutory language does not require such consideration. The term "progress through treatment" does not necessarily include such a defendant's maturation process, which involves a number of factors that must be applied on a case-by-case basis. However, because "progress through treatment" includes sex offender programs that are, by definition, rehabilitative, parole boards must consider rehabilitation as part of their ultimate decisions regarding juvenile sex offenders.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Gabriel, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 2024CO14, Categories: Juvenile Law, parole, sex Offender
J. Shorr finds the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision properly accounted for sex-offense-free time in the community in setting defendant’s risk level. Defendant "has failed to develop his argument that the board, upon adopting an actuarial instrument, was prohibited from deviating from that instrument.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Shorr, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: A179828, Categories: parole, sex Offender
J. Shorr finds the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision properly accounted for sex-offense-free time in the community in setting defendant’s risk level. Defendant “failed to address the specific language in effect.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Shorr, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: A176473, Categories: parole, sex Offender
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Webb finds the circuit court properly denied defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. Defendant was convicted after the annotation of a cited code eliminating parole eligibility for violent offenders, and defendant's prior offenses of armed robbery and home invasion support application of the code. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Webb , Filed On: December 7, 2023, Case #: CV-23-284, Categories: parole, sex Offender
J. Southwick finds the trial court properly ordered the inmate to be released on parole after its grant was rescinded just before its effective date. Convicted for manslaughter and attempted aggravated rape, defendant served 16 of his 71-year sentence. After multiple parties sought to have the parole rescinded, as well as negative media attention, the parole was rescinded due to a possible irregularity to victim notice. Defendant was notified 10 days after his parole was rescinded. “Victim notification” was not a permissible reason to rescind parole at that point. Affirmed and remanded.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Southwick, Filed On: October 23, 2023, Case #: 22-30159, Categories: parole, sex Offender, Manslaughter
J. Kemp finds the circuit court properly dismissed the prisoner’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking entitlement to parole. The issue has been addressed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in a prior order affirming the circuit court’s denial of the same type of petition. Because petitioner pleaded guilty to rape committed in 1996, certain Arkansas Code applies addressing violent offender eligibility upon reaching regular eligibility, but only after a minimum age of 55. Though petitioner is 55, his eligibility is not within the purview of the trial court. Thus, no reference to the parole-eligibility statutes is listed in his judgment and commitment order. It is settled that the determination of eligibility is solely up to the corrections division, which has determined that the petitioner’s eligibility date is in 2037. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Kemp, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: CV-22-792, Categories: parole, sex Offender, Jurisdiction
J. Reynolds Fitzgerald finds that the lower court improperly ordered habeas relief after a parolee absconded and was returned to prison for 30 months. Because he is a sex offender and his absconding could have led to a repeat offense, the parolee committed a "non-technical" violation of parole, which by statute permitted reincarcerated. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Reynolds Fitzgerald, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: CV-22-2198, Categories: parole, sex Offender
J. Zahra finds the circuit court improperly reversed the Parole Board’s granting of parole three times to the individual convicted for criminal sexual conduct with his adolescent stepdaughter. The court of appeals has also improperly affirmed the circuit court. Both courts’ finding that there were substantial and compelling reasons for departure from parole guidelines impermissibly substituted their judgment for that of the Parole Board. The judgments are reversed, and the Board’s grant of parole is reinstated.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court, Judge: Zahra , Filed On: July 24, 2023, Case #: 164311, Categories: parole, sex Offender, Due Process
J. Lynch finds that the district court properly imposed special internet use conditions in lifetime parole because defendant, a sex offender, consistently violated supervised release. A "sensible reading" indicated these conditions were very similar to those imposed in the past following other violations and thus were not procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Lynch, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 21-2577-cr, Categories: parole, Sentencing, sex Offender