Opinion ID: 2782450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Toney’s Classification as a Sex Offender

Text: Toney alleges that, during his initial parole review in 2004, parole officer Donniea Garrett informed him that he was being identified as a sex offender. 3 According to Toney, at the end of his interview, he was required to complete a “Static 99 Sex Offender Risk Assessment” (“Static 99 Assessment”). This evaluation “is required for offenders [who are] being considered for parole, mandatory or discretionary mandatory supervision and [who] are identified as sex offenders in accordance with [AD 04.09].” The Static 99 Assessment, which is “used for assessing offenders’ risk level,” consists of a one-page form with ten questions relating to the offender’s history and past convictions, with corresponding point values to be assigned depending on the answers to those questions. Garrett completed the form and assigned Toney a total score of 3— thus classifying Toney as a “mod[erate]” risk. 4 This “indicat[es] that [Toney] 2 The TBPP has since enacted two subsequent versions of Special Condition X, which contain no relevant changes. 3 These allegations appear in Toney’s verified second amended complaint. 4 Toney received two points because he did not know and was unrelated to his victim, and one point for having a non-sexual assault conviction. 4 Case: 14-50331 Document: 00512949977 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/26/2015 No. 14-50331 poses a moderate danger to the community and may continue to engage in criminal sexual conduct.” The parole board denied Toney’s parole in 2004, providing the reason “2D.” This reason is given where: The record indicates that the inmate committed one or more violent criminal acts indicating a conscious disregard for the lives, safety, or property of others; or the instant offense or pattern of criminal activity has elements of brutality, violence, or conscious selection of victim’s vulnerability such that the inmate poses a continuing threat to public safety; or the record indicates use of a weapon. This same justification was given for each of Toney’s subsequent denials of parole, in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012. 5 In the parole board’s interview memorandum relating to Toney’s 2006 parole hearing, the parole commissioner noted that “no sexual attempt [was] mentioned” in Toney’s trial transcript. Nonetheless, Toney was consistently informed by the TDCJ and TBPP that he was being identified as a sex offender, despite his challenges to that classification. He was also informed, however, that he would not be required to register as a sex offender. In 2008, the TDCJ parole division provided Toney with a form entitled “Notice and Opportunity to Respond: Pre-Imposition of Sex Offender Special Conditions.” The form indicated that the parole division was “considering requesting the [TBPP] to impose Special Condition ‘X,’” given that Toney’s offense “allegedly involved attempting to sexually assault the female victim.” The notice informed Toney that he had the right to submit a statement and documentation on his behalf to challenge the imposition of the condition. Toney submitted several letters in response, but the TBPP concluded that 5 In 2012, one of the parole board members apparently voted to grant Toney parole pending sex offender treatment, but that vote was withdrawn. 5 Case: 14-50331 Document: 00512949977 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/26/2015 No. 14-50331 “Offender Toney is identified as a sex offender due to” his conviction, “during which the subject attempted to sexually assault an adult female.” 6 That year, Toney was denied parole and, as with respect to his other parole denials, the stated reason for the denial was “2D.” Since 2004, Toney’s TDCJ Individualized Treatment Plan (“ITP”)— which contains “a record of the inmate’s institutional progress,” “the results of any assessment of the inmate,” “the dates on which the inmate must participate in any subsequent assessment,” and “all of the treatment and programming needs of the inmate,” Tex. Gov’t Code § 508.152(b-1), indicated that Toney had a need for a sex offender treatment program. Printouts of Toney’s ITP in 2007 and 2011 show that under the Sex Offender Treatment Program (“SOTP”) category, Toney had a need of “3”—indicating that he had a “High Need” for the program and should “Enroll Now.” 7 The SOTP “is approximately 18-months in duration and is comprised of three treatment phases.” “Phase I,” which lasts three months, consists of various classes, as well as a psychological evaluation. “Phase II” lasts twelve months and involves intensive therapy. “Phase III” lasts three months, and consists of transition and release preparation. Toney’s ITP printouts contain the code “PA” under the SOTP field. According to the ITP manual of procedures, “PA” stands for “Pending Assignment” and: This code reflects an offender has a need for a program, however, pre-entrance testing must be completed prior to enrollment. Each treatment department should be able to identify personnel who are qualified to administer these types of tests. This code should only be used for specific programs requiring assessment testing prior to enrollment . . . . 6 This conclusion was indicated on Toney’s TBPP case summaries until as late as August 23, 2012. 7 The printouts also contain the comment: “Burg[lary] is Sex Related.” 6 Case: 14-50331 Document: 00512949977 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/26/2015 No. 14-50331 The code “PR,” which indicates that “the offender has refused to participate in a non-voluntary program,” does not appear on Toney’s ITP printouts. The ITP manual notes that “offenders may be subject to disciplinary action for refusing to attend a treatment program specified by the ITP team regardless of parole eligibility.” In 2012, after this suit was filed, a manager of the Sex Offender Rehabilitation Programs (“SORP”) reviewed Toney’s ITP. The manager concluded that Toney should not have been identified as a sex offender. Thus, the manager “directed a staff member to delete the ‘PA’ designation” under the SOTP field. This change is reflected on a January 2013 printout of Toney’s ITP. 8 Toney points to additional consequences he faced due to his classification as a sex offender. For example, he contends that his sex offender status precluded him from participating in college trade classes. Toney was also deemed ineligible for placement in substance abuse treatment “due to Sex Offender status.” Moreover, Toney asserts that in November 2007, he put in for a transfer to a different prison unit “[i]n fear that his peers . . . would find out that [he] was . . . identified as a sex offender;” the transfer was granted. 9 In 2011, according to Toney, he was involuntarily transferred to another unit, 8This action does not render Toney’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief moot. Toney’s most recent TBPP “case summary” indicates that “Toney is identified as a sex offender.” This case summary is dated August 23, 2012, several months after Appellees purportedly recognized that they had errantly classified Toney as a sex offender. Furthermore, the operative complaint makes clear that, as part of the requested injunctive relief, Toney seeks “[e]xpunge[ment] [of] all information systems or written records designating Toney prior and during the pendency of this suit as a sex offender.” (emphasis removed). There is no evidence that Appellees have removed Toney’s sex offender classification from any records other than from his ITP. Accordingly, “an actual, live controversy” remains with respect to Toney’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. United States v. Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352, 355 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 However, a letter Toney wrote to the warden indicates that he sought the transfer to be closer to aging relatives. 7 Case: 14-50331 Document: 00512949977 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/26/2015 No. 14-50331 the Ellis Unit, where “they have Sex Offender Treatment Programs.” 10 In general, Toney asserts that his sex offender status caused him “great stress, and mental anguish” and caused him to become “ill, with physical symptoms.”