UPDATESAccording to the Harris
County Supervision and Corrections Department, there are over two hundred
fifty (250) offenders who are on parole and probation, concurrently. That
number is expected to increase to over 1,000 offenders next year. The main
reason for the expected increase in dual supervision are the new state jail
felonies that call for probated sentences; for crimes as auto theft, theft
and some drug offenses. Since the new penal code went into effect, there
have been approximately twenty parolees charged with state jail felonies.
Dual supervision is such a new phenomenon that most officials contacted,
either were unaware that it existed or never heard of this new wave of "supervision.
In order to be a dual supervision case, certain factors
must exist:
1. A parolee commits a new offense. 2. A parolee is convicted
of the new offense and a judge sentences them to probation or deferred adjudication*.
3. The parole division elects to continue the convicted felon on parole
supervision while he or she is concurrently serving their probated sentence.
There are several reasons one can speculate as to why convicted
felons are allowed to be on dual supervision. A judge might be inclined
to grant probation or deferred adjudication on a non-violent offense feeling
that the court will have better control over that individual as opposed
to sending them to prison for a short period of time. Parole division might
feel that if a judge grants probation to a parolee who breaks the law, then
they are also willing to give them another chance. An example would be:
a convicted felon on parole for auto theft is convicted of a state jail
felony auto theft (whose purpose is to divert "non-violent offenders
from the penitentiary). To revoke their parole would defeat the intended
purpose of the new state jails because they remain on parole.
The following are case examples of dual supervision:
1. Bobby Gene Blue received a five-year deferred adjudication
for delivery of a controlled substance in 1993. He is currently on parole
for a 1988 Aggravated Robbery with a deadly weapon with a sentence of 8
years. 2. Charles Ray Burton received a ten-year deferred adjudication for
possession of cocaine in 1993 and was on parole for a 99-year sentence for
three counts of Aggravated Robbery. Burton is on annual report -- meaning,
all he has to do is mail in a report once a year to Austin. 3. Cathy Rushing
Hines received a ten-year probation for Theft in 1993. Her priors include
a ten-year sentence for two counts of Theft in 1990, five years for theft
in 1987 and three and one-half years for Auto Theft. 4. John Kevin McLenon
received a ten-year deferred adjudication for possession of cocaine in 1994
and was serving a twenty-year sentence for a murder conviction in 1985.
5. Dirk Connie Ryan received five years probation for D.W.I. in 1993 and
was serving a three-year prison sentence for D.W.I. in 1991. Go figure that
one out!! 6. Barbara Nell Ginn was sentenced to ten years probation for
Forgery in 1994. Her priors include : 25 years for Theft (habitual), 1986
on two counts of theft, and in 1979 it was three years for Robbery.
Believe it or not, even the illustrious death row inmate
Kenneth McDuff was on dual supervision. While out on parole, McDuff was
convicted of driving while intoxicated and was granted probation. His parole
was not revoked and was remained on dual supervision until his arrest and
conviction for a 1992 abduction and slaying, which placed McDuff back on
death row. There are many other similar examples I could describe but I
think you get the point. From a fiscal view-point it is absurd that you
the taxpayer are paying for both a parole and probation officer to "supervise
this offender who has already violated his parole by being convicted of
a new offense. If he or she is such a bad egg that needs to be watched by
two officers, one could easily conclude they should not be on the streets
in the first place. To the Harris County Probation Department,s credit they
have foreseen this phenomenon by creating dual caseloads so that dual offenders
are under one jurisdiction within their department. Officials with the parole
division admit they don,t have a clue as to how many parolees they supervise
who are serving probation for crimes committed while on parole. One might
think that if Harris County Probation Department has already identified
dual offenders then all the parole division has to do is call or even write
them a note ASKING THEM, but that invokes common sense -- a forgotten art
amongst certain jurisdictions. Because of dual supervision, studies that
chart recidivist rates will have to be altered because technically those
individuals are not counted as repeat offenders because even though they
have committed a new felony offense while on parole, they have not been
sent back to the penitentiary. Research in the past has stated that about
fifty percent of parolees will return to prison within three years of release.
Obviously, one can conclude those recidivist rates should have been higher
because of dual supervision. The parole officials have already stated their
position that they were not going to treat state jail felonies as felony
convictions for the purposes of parole revocation. Logic would make one
wonder how a person can be on both probation and parole. Unfortunately,
we do not have a logical criminal justice system so dual supervision is
here to stay and will undoubtedly be growing by leaps and bounds and you,
the taxpayer, will be paying not once, but twice.
*Deferred Adjudication " refers to a condition of probation
whereas, if you complete the stipulated time frame without committing a
felony offense; your criminal record will be cleansed of the offense.
It has been almost thirty-one years since Ora David Lott
was charged with robbing and murdering Alfonso C. Orosco, Sr. at his place
of business. On Sunday, July 19, 1964 Lott walked into a Fifth Ward beer
wholesale store and robbed, then calmly shot Mr. Lott in the chest while
his ten-year old son, Alfonso Jr., watched in horror.
The suspect was apprehended in 1972 in Florida and then
released by accident due to an error made by Houston Police Department.
The Orosco Family never gave up and asked HPD detective C. P. "Abby
Abbondado to reopen the case in September 1993. With the assistance of Gulf
Coast Violent Offenders Task Force officers, J. R. Dees and John Bertolini,
Lott was traced to New Orleans. The suspect was arrested again as of September
30, 1994 and is being held without bail in the New Orleans jail. His extradition
to Houston is scheduled for the first week of January 1995.
The defense attorney is asking the State of Texas, because
of his arrest and release from Florida, to drop the murder charge, because
their client was denied his constitutional rights by not receiving a speedy
trial. The sons of the victim are members of Justice for All and request
that fellow members write to the District Attorney's office and express
their concern that the full force of the law be carried out in this case.
Your help in this matter will be greatly appreciated by the Orosco Family.
The District Attorney is: William James Hawkins, Jr. Assistant District
Attorney District Attorney's Office 201 Fannin, Suite 200 Houston, Texas
77002-1901
Convicts are freed from prison when the time they have
served on their sentence plus their accrued good-conduct time equals the
maximum term of their sentence. Like parole, the release is supervised -
and those released must comply with rules for the full term of their sentence.
Example -- If a convict serving a 10-year sentence gets out after spending
six years in prison, he or she will remain on mandatory supervision for
the next four years. Unlike parole, no review or approval by the Board of
Pardons & Paroles is required.
How many of those released are returned to prison for violating
the rules or committing new crimes? Of the 3,354 released on mandatory supervision
in 1993, 1140 were returned to prison. Of the 5779 in 1994, there were 1735
violators. But those figures do not include convicts who were released on
mandatory supervision from county jails, where they were serving time because
of overcrowding at state prisons.
Are all criminals eligible for mandatory supervision? No.
Those who were convicted of some crimes after Sept. 1, 1987, are not. The
crimes include murder, capital murder, indecency with a child, aggravated
kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery, use of a deadly
weapon while committing a felony, sexual assault, aggravated assault, deadly
assault on a police officer or a corrections officer, injury to a child
or an elderly person, first-degree arson, first- or second-degree robbery,
and first-degree burglary. Are all violent offenders ineligible for mandatory
supervision? No. Those convicted before Sept. 1, 1987 remain eligible. When
was the mandatory supervision program started? In 1977 by the legislature.
They reduced eligibility for some violent offenders in 1987.
From the President UPCOMING EVENTSMonday, January 9 Jury selection begins
for the second defendant, Erica Sheppard, in the murder of MARILYN SAGE-MEAGHER
in Judge Carl Walker,s courtroom, 301 San Jacinto at 9:00 AM.
Wednesday, January 18 DANA SKYVARA would like
to meet with concerned citizens regarding sexual assaults in the Conroe
area. Ms. Skyvara was a victim of a sexual assault and the man accused of
the crime was released due to results from DNA testing, but she is convinced
that he was the perpetrator. The meeting will take place at the Woodlands
Public Library in The Woodlands beginning at 7:00 PM. Please attend.
Monday, January 30 Jury selection will begin for
William David Kelley with additional charges for burglary with the intent
to sexually assault PAM LYCHNER four years ago. Honorable Judge Caprice
Cosper, 339th Harris County District Court, 301 San Jacinto at 9:00 AM.
Monday, April 17 Jury selection begins of the trial
of Rex Mayes in the double murder of KYNARA CARRIERO and KRISTIN WILEY.
The trial will be in the 176th Harris County Criminal District court with
Judge Raines presiding.
UPDATES
Jeffery Dahmer killed seventeen
people. He skinned his victims, cut up their body parts, he even ate their
flesh. For that crime, Jeffery Dahmer was granted three square meals, a
law library, and a cable TV. Ladies and gentlemen not any more; a bunch
of prisoners in Wisconsin got tired of waiting on the Supreme Court for
"TERM LIMITS." Jeffery Dahmer was beaten to death. This case,
Mr. Speaker, clearly depicts the weakness of the American Justice System.Jeffery
Dahmer should have been sentenced to death by a jury not by a bunch of thugs
in prison. Let there be no mistake, Americans are fed up with a Congress
that coddles killers and forgets about their victims. And this is certainly
not a day to celebrate such a brutal killing, but the truth is, Jeffery
Dahmer earned it, he deserved it; "GOOD NIGHT SWEET PRINCE." Congress
should learn from a bunch of prisoners who provided some justice in America.
Return to JFA Home
Page