According 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.
Monday, 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.
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.