TX- Judge rules child killer unfairly labeled sex offender

3-26-2009 Texas:

Convict deserves hearing on whether he lacks sexual control, judge says.

Convicted child killer Raul Meza deserves a hearing on whether he lacks sexual control, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. The ruling gives Meza a chance to shed the sex offender restrictions that have helped keep him confined for more than six years at a Del Valle facility for parolees.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel found that state parole officials imposed the sex offender restrictions on Meza, 48, without first providing him advance notice of the allegations against him and without a hearing, written notice of their decision and other due process rights.

Yeakel's findings brought an end to Meza's due process and equal rights lawsuit against the state, which went to trial last year. But it could lead to a flurry of lawsuits filed in Austin federal courts challenging how parole officials have imposed sex offender restrictions on other parolees, lawyers familiar with the subject said.

Calls for comment to the Texas attorney general's office, which represents parole officials in court, were not returned. Meza's lawyers declined to comment.

Meza was convicted of murder in the 1982 killing of 8-year-old Kendra Page in the playground of a Southeast Austin elementary school, and he was sentenced to 30 years in prison. He later received another four years for having a weapon in prison. During last year's civil trial, lawyers said he admitted during sex offender counseling that he also sexually assaulted the girl.

Under the state's mandatory supervision law, which has since been changed, he was released in 1993 when his time served and good-behavior time equaled the length of his sentence. He was put on parole, then returned to prison in 1994 after a curfew violation.

In 2002, he was transferred to a minimum security section of the Travis County Jail when his time served and good behavior credit again equaled the length of his sentence.

Meza's lawyers with the Texas Civil Rights Project sued state prison and parole officials, saying that his parole conditions were so tough, they essentially would lead to his incarceration in Del Valle until his sentence expires in 2017. They said Meza is being treated differently from other parolees in his situation because of the high-profile nature of his crime.

For example, Meza could not move into the community unless he found a place to live and job to help pay for it. But he was only allowed to use a job search facility for parolees for four hours a week and was escorted by a parole officer to job interviews, according to testimony in last year's civil trial.

The sex offender conditions on his parole required him, among other things, to attend counseling and prohibited him from working near places where children congregate.

"Meza's sex-offender status and related stigma have likely contributed to his inability to secure employment," Yeakel wrote. "Despite state witnesses' assertions that they would 'love' for Meza to find a job ... the state informs Meza's potential employers that he is a sex offender."

Lawyers for parole officials said the restrictions were necessary to keep the community safe.

Yeakel dismissed Meza's claims that he is unfairly being treated differently than similar parolees, saying he did not consider them given his decision on the sex offender restrictions. Meza could re-file those claims.

He based his ruling on Coleman v. Dretke, a 2004 case decided by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was brought by Tony Ray Coleman, who, like Meza, was not convicted of a sex offense but was subject to sex offender restrictions while on parole.

In that case, the 5th Circuit ruled that the sex offender label is so serious that the state needs to hold a hearing before imposing it — and even then, the state could only tag Coleman as a sex offender if he were found to "constitute a threat to society by reason of his lack of sexual control."

Following that ruling, Texas officials began sending some parolees, such as Meza, a letter from a parole officer informing them that the state was reviewing their sex offender restrictions and inviting a written response. A parole board panel then decided in secret whether to continue the restrictions; the parolee wasn't told what information was used to make the decision.

At Meza's trial, parole officials said that providing a full hearing — where a parolee or his lawyer could challenge the information given to the panel — would be too costly and time consuming.

Yeakel disagreed.

"Despite the state's notice to Meza, without the state informing him what evidence would be used against him, Meza was unable to prepare an informed response to the state's position," Yeakel wrote. "Adversary hearings could assure that all relevant issues are considered."

Yeakel's ruling is significant because for the first time it lays out what type of due process rights are expected under the Coleman ruling, said Bill Habern and Richard Gladden, who assisted Meza's lawyers and have filed a series of cases challenging the state's imposition of sex offender restrictions on parolees.

Yeakel's ruling is now law in the Austin federal court, they said.

Gladden said that thousands of Texas parolees who were not convicted of a sex offense but have sex offender restrictions on their parole now have strong standing to sue state parole officials in the Austin court. If the state does not change its practices, those lawsuits could prove costly, they said.

Though Yeakel's ruling did not address Meza's remaining legal challenges to his confinement, the judge seemed to encourage parole officials to ease his restrictions.

"The court is certain that the state will use the hearing and review process," he wrote, "to re-evaluate all of Meza' parole conditions ... and consider such reasonable changes as will enhance Meza's opportunity to safely reintegrate into society." ..News Source.. by Steven Kreytak, AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF