## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0145- 09

EX PA R TE JO H N C H R I STO PH ER C O V EY , JR. , A ppe l l ant

ON APP ELLANT’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE ELEVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

NO LAN CO UNTY C OCHR AN , J. , f

i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h J OHNS ON , J. , j oi ne d.

OP I NI ON I agr ee t hat appel l ant i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef, al t hough I have s er i ous doubt s t hat hi s t r i al at t or neypr ovi ded cons t i t ut i onal l y defi ci ent as s i s t ance . T hi s i s a ca s e i n w hi ch nobody–not
a p p e llan t, his trial o r h a b e a s a tto rn e y , th e trial ju d g e , o r th e p ro se c u to r– w a s q u ite c o rre c t in hi s under s t andi ng of t he s ex- offe nder

- r egi s t r at i on l aw s . Fr om t he ver y begi nni ng unt i l aft er th e c o n c lu sio n o f

th e h e a rin g o n th e h a b e a s c o rp u s a p p lica tio n , all o f th e p a rticip a n ts
er r oneously b eli eved t hat appl i canthad an obl i gat i on t o r egi s t er as a s ex off enderfor l i fe. F u rth e rm o re , fr o m th e v e ry b e g in n in g u n til a f ter th e c o n c lu sio n o f

th e p lea p ro c e e d in g , allCovey ConcurringOpinion Page 2

Indeed, the trial judg e innoce ntly , but errone ously , compounded the pr oblem when 1 appellant a sked, “It say s that there’ s a cha nce of g etting taken off

of the sexual offe nder e arlier than probation is up. W hat’s–what are the rules on that? ” Th e tr ia l ju dg e re sp on de d: “ Di sc re tio na ry wi th t he Court . So , th e re ’s no t li ke a c he c kli st that you can do a

nd automatically

g et any thing done . Thereare rea lly no promises to you other than that it’s subject to beingrevie wed.” Earlier in the hearing, a

ppellant had a sked whe ther the r ule prohibiting him fr om using th e Int ern etm i gh tb e c h an gedi nth e n ear f uture . T h e tri al j u d ge t o l d h i mth e f o l l o wi n g: Any of these r ules could cha

ng e. The y

could be lifted; ther e could be more restric tions placed on you while you’re on probation. It’s cer tainly something that is r e vie we d, but th e re are no gua ra nte e s, so you

might j us t ha

ve themin d s e t th is is the way it’s goingto be. I f it g ets better, great; if it doesn’t, you’re not–Idon’t want you to fee l like you wer e tricke d in any way . Ex pect the w orst as fa r as what these re strictions are on you, and if somethingelse wor ks out— Appellant then a sked, “Who cha ng es those re strictions? ” And the trial judgeresponde d, “I do.” It is no wonder that appe llant believed that he had a c hanceto apply for, a nd might re c e ive , e arl y

te rm inatio n o f t

he se x off e nd e r r e g ist

ratio n r e qu ir e me nt i f h e c omp lie d f a ith fu lly with all of the re quirements of his community supervision. Duringthis plea hea ring , appellant explained that the incident for which he wa s indicted occ urre d while he wa s so intox icated that he had no me mory

of the e vent, so he c ould not defend himself. H e stated that he had be en “ so be r” fo r e ight m onths , a nd thu s h e might r e a so na

bly thi nk that he wo uld

be a g oo d c and idate fo r e arl y te rm inatio n if

he c ontin ue d to a dd

re ss h is d ri nk ingpr ob le m. State’s B rief on D irec t Appeal at 3 (“[A]ppellant is notsubject to lifetime re g istration as 2 attempted sexual assault is not a sexually violent offense , nor does it fa ll into any other c ateg ory requiringlifetime reg istration. A defe rre d adjudication for attempted sexual assault falls into the cate g ory that require s reg istration for ten year s after rele ase f rom community

supervision.”). of t he par t i ci pant s er r oneous l y bel i eved t hat t he t r i al j udge had t he di s cr et i on t o t er m i nat e t he

s ex- offe nder

- r egi s t r at i on r equi r ement ear l y . I have a di ffi cul t t i m e s w al l ow i ng t he fi ndi ng 1
t hat appell an t’ s tr i al at t or neyw as cons t i t ut i onal l yi ncompet ent i f t he pr os ecut or and t r i al j udge had pr eci s el y t he s ame m i s under s t andi ng about t he l aw t hat he di d. It w as n o t un ti l t h e p rose cu tor i n v esti g ated the s ex o ff en d er reg ist rati o n stat u tes m o re
car eful l y on di r ect appea l t hat t he “c or r ect ” l aw w as di s cover ed. A ppel l ant does not have 2 a l i fel ong obl i gat i on t o compl y w i t h t he s ex offe nder r egi s t r at i on r equi r ement s . U nder T exasCovey ConcurringOpinion Page 3

T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 62.101(b)
. 3 Cov e yv . S tate , N o . 1 1
- 0 8
- 0 0 1 9 0
- CR , 2 0 0 8 WL 5 2 0 5 6 4 1 at * 3 n . 1 ( T e x. 4 App—Eastland, De c. 11, 2008) ( not designated f or publication). T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 62.401-62.408. 5 T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 62.401-62.408. T he cour t of appe als noted that “a

ppellant 6 has not shown that he is pre cluded f rom filing a

motion for early

rele ase during the eighteen year s.” Covey , 2 00 8 WL 52 05 64 1, at *7 . It w ou ld s e e m th at, u nd e r a rt . 6 2. 40 2, theCounc il i s require d to publish onl y

a list of those Texas offe nses for which the minimum reg istration period exceeds that a ssessed under fede ral law . I f the minimum is the same or less than the f eder al require ment, there is no need to list the offense . For attempted sexual assault, the re g istration periods ar e the same under state and f

eder al law–ten year s after rele ase f rom prison, parole , or community

supervision. 42 U.S.C. § 14071(6) (A) . Thus, it would appear that appellant c annot l aw , hi s o bl i gat i on l as t s for t he dur at i on of t he comm uni t y - s uper vi s i on per i od–ei ght y ear s –pl us t en y ear s t her eaf t er . I ndeed, as t he cour t of appe al s n o ted, “Thi s m i s t ake by 3 [habe as ] counsel [t hat appel l ant had a l i fel ong r egi s t r at i on r equi r ement ] i ndi cat es t hat appel l ant ’ s or i gi nal co u ns el ’ s advi ce w as w i t hi n t he r ange of compet ence demanded of at t or ney s i n cr i m i nal cas es . ” I n ot her w or ds , num er ous r eas onabl e at t or ney s m ake mi s t akes 4 i n deci pher i ng t he s ex off enderr egi s t r at i on r equi r ement s . T heyar e ver ycompl ex. I al s o agr ee w i t h t he pr os ecut or and t he cour t of appe als that ap pel l ant i s not
nece s s ar i l y pr ecl uded fr om fi l i ng for and obt ai ni ng ear l yt er m i nat i on of hi s s ex off ender

r egi str ati o n req u ir em en ts un d er a rt icl e 6 2
. 4 0 2 -62
. 4 0 8 b ef o re the en d o f th e c u rren t ei g h te en- 5 y earr egi s t r at i on obl i gat i on. A ppar ent l y , the C ounci l on Sex O ffe nder T r eat m ent has not publ i s hed a l i s t of r epor t abl e off ens es for w hi ch one coul d r eques t ear l y t er m i nat i on, but t hat i s not t o s ay t hat appel l ant w oul d defi ni t el yneverqual i fyfor r el eas e undert he s ubchapt er deal i ng w i t h ear l y t er m i nat i on i f t he l aw change s dur i ng t hi s per i od. 6Covey ConcurringOpinion Page 4

re qu e st e arl y

te rm inatio n o f t

he se x-of fe nd e r- re g istra

tio n r e qu ir e me nt u

nd e r s ub c ha

pte r I un le ss the leg islature cha

ng es these statutes within the nex t eighteen year s, with sex -off ender

reg istration laws bec oming more or less oner ous as public policy and socia l attitudes shift over time. The Court quotes, and r elies upon, finding s 3, 6, and 7. See Slip. Op. at 5-6.

7 T h e tri al j u d ge e n d edth e h ab ea s h eari n g b y s t at i n g: 8 And the fa ct that the def endant wa s under the impre ssion and that impression confirme d that there was a possibili ty

he could be rele ased f

rom what he knew to be a life -time reg istration, a possibility , cer tainly didn’t indicate it was guara nteed he would be re lease d, Icer tainly find that the De fenda

nt’s information and incor rec t information was c onfirmed through defe nse counse l and from the Court, did nothing to clea r that up. But, it beingof such a

non-punitive nature that based upon the testimony of the De fe nd ant, the de me ano r a nd thec re dib ili ty

of his te sti mony

that th is i s something that Idon’t fee l is – that the harm has be en esta blished to warr ant grantingthe Def

endant’ s Writ of Habea s Corpus, which is in all things denied. T h e tri al j u d ge’ s wr i tt enco n cl u s i o n s o f l awco n cl u d e w i thth e f o l l o wi n g: Be cause the re g istration require ments of Chapter 62 C.C.P. are reme dial and not punitive, and bec ause r elief unde r Art. 62.404 C.C.P. is speculative and fu rt he rm or e , b e c a

us e Ap pli c ant b e lie ve d th at [a ] jur y wo uld have c onvic te d h im, the le g a l si gnif

ic anc e of the ba d a dv ic e c omp la ine d o f b y Ap pli c ant i s substantially

discounted. Unde r these c ircumstance s, the bad a dvice is not sufficie nt to support a claim of involuntary plea. T hat s ai d, t he t r i al j udge ent er ed w r i t t en fi ndi ngs of fa ct t hat w oul d s uppo rt b o t h a fi ndi ng of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of t r i al couns el and a fi ndi ng of det r i m ent al r el i ance upon hi s “er r oneous ” advi ce. A ppar ent l y , t he onl y r eas on t hat t he t r i al j udge di d not gr ant r el i ef 7

on appel l ant ’ s w r i t appl i cat i on w as t hat he concl uded t hat s ex offe nder r egi s t r at i on w as “of

s uch a non- puni t i ve natur e” t hat appel l ant w as not “h armed” byhi s couns el ’ s er r oneous advi ce. I di s agr ee w i t h t hat l egal concl us i on beca us e “har m ” i s not r eal l yt he cor r ecti s s ue

8 in th is c o n te x t. W hen a d e fenda nt chal l enges t he vol unt ar i nes s of hi s pl ea, ar gui ng t hat he ent er ed t hatCovey ConcurringOpinion Page 5

Hi ll v . Lo c k

ha rt , 4 74 U. S. 5 2, 58 -5 9 ( 19 85 ); Ex parte M oody , 991 S.W .2d 856, 857-58 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). See E x parte Re ed, 271 S.W .3d 698, 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 10 See Sm ith v. Doe , 538 U.S. 84, 105-06 (2003) ( concludingthat Alaska’ s sex offender 11 reg istration require ment was a non-punitive regulatory

scheme that did not violate e xpo st f ac to c la us e ); Mi tsc hk

ev . S tate , 1 2 9 S. W. 3 d

1 3 0 , 1 3 6 ( T e x. Crim
. Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ [A ]l th o u ghth e s e xoffe nder r eg istration require ment is a direc t conseque nce of appellant’ s plea, it is a non-punitive measure , and fa ilure to admonish does not nec essarily rende r a ple a involuntary .”). Ap p el l an t ’s o ri gi n al co mmun i ty -s u p erv i s i o nre qu i re m en t s i n cl u d edth e f o l l o wi n g: 12 16. Def

endant sha ll attend and par ticipate in a se x offe nder tre atment program a s directe d by the supervision off

icer . Def endant sha ll keep all appointments, follow all rule s and re gulatio ns , a

nd sh a ll n ot c e a se pa

rt ic ipatio n in

sa id p ro gra

m until re le a se d b y

thec ourt
. 17. Reg ister with your loca l municipal or county law enf orce ment ag ency

as a se x offe nder within 7 day s after

beingplace d on probation as r equire d by Article 6252- 13C.1 R.S ., and if you move to a new

residenc e, or c hang e employ ment, repor

t any chang es to the re g ist e ri nga g e nc y

wi thi n 7 da

y s; pl ea ba s ed upon i nacc ur at e or “l egal l ybad” a dvi ce f r om hi s couns el , he must s how t hat ( 1) hi s couns el ’ s cl ai m w as not w it h in the ran ge of c om pet ence demanded of at t or ney s i n cr i m i nal cas es ; and ( 2) t her e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , but for couns el ’ s er r or , he w oul d not h a v e p lea d e d g u ilt y , b u t w o u ld h a v e in sis ted u p o n g o in g to trial. 9 In h is f in d in g s, th e trial ju d g e u n e q u iv o c a lly sta ted , “ If A p p lica n t h a [ d ] n o t b e e n e rro n e o u sly advi s ed, i t i s m or e proba bl e t han not t hat A ppl i cant w oul d have pl eade d ‘ not gui l t y . ’ ” A nd b e c a u se th is f

in d in g is c lea rlysu p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd , w e sh o u ld a d o p t it
. 10 A l t hough t he t r i al j udge cor r ect l ynot ed t hat s ex offender r egi s t r at i on i s a mat t er t hat t h e l aw cat egor i zes as “non- puni t i ve” a nd “r emedi al , ” t he r ecor d s how s t hat appel l ant 11 bel i eved t hat t he s ex off ender r equi r ement s , es peci al l y r egi s t r at i on, w er e bot h puni t i ve and

o f p rim a ry im p o rta n c e to h im in e n ter in g a p lea to th e a ttem p ted -se x u a l-a ss a u lt ch a rg e . H is 12Covey ConcurringOpinion Page 6

18
. Ea c h ye ar, the de fe nd ant o n o r b e fo rehis bir thd ay , u pd ate his re g istra

tio n p a pe rw or k w ith the re g isteringag ency

and continue until direc ted otherw ise; 19. Def

endant sha ll contact the Te x as Department of Public Safe ty within 30 day s from being place d on probation, to obtain his sex offe nder drivers license or ID ca rd, and is to re new them on or bef

ore his/her

birthday eac h year there afte r until told otherw ise; 20. Def

endant sha ll not reside in any household with any

child, male or f

emale, unde r se ve nte e n ( 17 ) ye ars of

a g e . Writt e n p e rm iss ion of thi s c ourt is r e qu ir e d to mod if

y thi s order ; 21. Def

endant sha ll not supervise or par ticipate in any

employ ment or any

program that includes as pa

rticipants or re cipients persons who a re 17 year s of ag e or young er a nd that re gula rl y pr ov ide s athl e tic , c ivi c , o r c ult ur a l a c tiv iti e s; 22. Def

endant sha ll not go into or within a distance of 1,000 fe et of a ny premises whe re children c ommonly

g ather , including a

school, day-ca

re f acility , playground, public or p r i v at e yo uthc e nt e r , p u

b l i c s w i mm i n gp o o l , o r

v i d e o ar c a d e f

a c i l i ty; 23
. De fe nd ant s ha ll n ot u se po rn ogra phy or e ro tic a or fr e qu e nt a du lt b oo k s tor e s, se x sho ps , top le ss b ars , ma ssa g e pa

rl or s and lik e e sta bli shme nts ; 24. Def

endant sha ll attend the 32nd J udicial District CSCD sex offe nder c ounselingand pay counselingfee s as direc ted; 29. Def

endant sha ll not have ac cess to a c omputer, we b TV, PDA, smart phone , or any other de vic e (s ) t

hat pr ov ide a c c e ss t o th e int e rn e t un le ss wri tte n p e rm iss ion fr om t he c ourt is grante d; 30
. De fe nd ant s ha ll n ot h ave c a ble TVor sate lli te that [su

bs c ri be s] to the pr e mie rec ha nn e ls, i.e., HB O, Cinemax, S howtime, etc., that a llows him/her to viewpornographic or sexually expli cit materia l[ .] pos i t i on t hat t he oner ous r egi s t r at i on r equi r ement w as per s onal l y puni t i ve i s s uppor t ed byt he

r ecor d, es peci al l y beca us e he bel i eved t hat t he r egi s t r at i on r equi r ement w as l i fel ong. G i ven t he dr aconi an natur e of t he r egi s t r at i on r equi r ement and t he obl oquy , har as s m ent , and eve n
v io len c e th a t f

re q u e n tlyf

o llo w s in th e w a k e o f p u b lic n o tific a tio n a n d in ter n e t av a ilab ili ty
o f se x re g istra n ts’ n a m e s, a d d re ss e s, e m p lo y e rs, e tc., it is n o t su rp risin g th a t ap p e llan t w o u ld

ra th e r ro ll th e d ice o n a ju ry trial th a n sig n u p f o r w h a t h e b e liev e d to b e th e life lo n g p u b lic di s gr ace of s ex off

enderr egi s t r at i on. T her efor e, I j oi n t he C our t ’ s opi ni on t hat appel l ant ’ s pl ea w as i nvol unt ar ybas ed uponCovey ConcurringOpinion Page 7 h is tr ia l c o u n s e l’ s e rr o n e o u s a d v ic e . Fi l ed: M ar ch 31, 2010 D o N ot Pub l i sh