## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-94,627-01

EX P ARTE JASON RICHARD EIDAM, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US C AUSE NO. CR21-0856-392A IN THE 392ND DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HENDERSON COUNTY

Per curiam . O P I N I O N Applicant was convicted of pos s e s s i o n o f a c o nt r o lled substance and sentenced to three y ears’ imprisonment. H e filed this application for a writ o f habeas c orpus in the c ounty of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant c ontends, in part , that a TDCJ parole p a nel violated his due process rig hts by imposing Special Condition M (s e x o ffender reg istration) and Special Condition X (i.e., sex offender treatment), including completion of a sex offender education prog ram as a condition of Applicant’s parole release, when he h ad not been convicted of a sex offense and the panel had not determined that h e constituted a threat to society b y r e a s o n o f h is lack of sex ual c ontrol. Ex parte E vans, 338 S.W

. 3d 545, 553 ( Tex

. Crim. App. 2011). I n a J u ne 12, 2023, habeas hearing , the trial judg ereceive d a copy of a 2015 Michig an court o r der titled, “Order on Petition to Discontinue Sex

Offender Reg istration,” that pertained to Applicant’s 1996 Michig an conviction for Criminal Sex ual C onduct. This order confirmed that Applicant’s 1996 Michig a n offense of conviction had been a consensual sex act, committed when the victim was between 13 a nd 16 y ears old and Applicant was not more than four y ears older t h a n t h e v i ctim. T he order also discontinued the sex offender reg istration requirement for such offenses. I n its September 27, 2023, finding s and conclusions, the h abeas court finds that Applicant’s Michig an conviction is not a sex offense for purposes of Tex as Government Code §§ 508.228 and 508.1862. Applicant h as no convictions that are sex offenses. The habeas c ourt concludes, therefore, that the Parole B o ard’s imposition o f t h e r equirement that Applicant complete a four-month sex offender education prog ram, w i t hout a conviction for a sex offense and without a finding that Applicant lacks sex ual control, violates Applicant’s due process r i gh t s. T he h abeas court recommends that any and all sex offender c onditions or prog rams should be immediately removed from Applicant’s supervised release. W e ag ree. Relief is g ranted. A parole board cannot i m p o s e s ex offender conditions on someone who has not been convicted of a sex offense, when those conditions are imposed without a particulariz ed justification developed in a c cordance with p r o cedural due process. See Ex parte Campbell, 267 S.W

. 3d 9 16, 926 (Tex

. Crim. App. 2008). Applicant does not have a s ex offense conviction f or purposes of Tex as G overnment Code §§ 50 8

. 2 2 8 and 508.1862. Therefore, the sex offender conditions were unlawfully imposed. T h e y shall be immediately removed from the terms of Applicant’s supervised r e lease

. C o p i e s of this opinion shall be sent to the T e x as Department of C ri m i n al J ustice-Correctional I nstitutions Division, the B o ard o f Pardons and Paroles, and t h e P a r o l e Division.F iled: NOVEMB E R 08, 2023

Do not publish