July 22, 2010
Eighth Circuit approves most, but not all, broad supervised release restrictions for sex offenderYesterday the Eighth Circuit handed down a notable opinion in US v. Simons, No. 09-2142 (8th Cir. July 21, 2010) (available here), concerning a set broad supervised release restrictions on a sex offender convicted for failing to register. Here is the unofficial summary of the ruling from the Eighth Circuit's website:
Though not breaking lots of new jurisprudential ground in Simons, this AP found the ruling notable. It has this report on the case, headlined "Appeals Court says nude pics OK for sex offender."
No error in imposing the following special conditions of supervised release following defendant's conviction for failing to register as a sex offender: (1) refrain for excessive use of alcohol; (2) no contact with children under the age of 18 unless the contact is approved in advance by the probation officer; and (3) remain 500 or more feet away from schools, playgrounds and other places where children congregate. The district court erred, however, in barring defendant from possessing any materials that depict nudity, as such a condition results in a deprivation of liberty greater than is reasonably necessary; this condition is vacated and the matter is remanded for additional findings and resentencing.
July 22, 2010 at 10:54 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Eighth Circuit approves most, but not all, broad supervised release restrictions for sex offender:
hmm what a crock!
"A grand jury returned an indictment against Simons
on December 17, charging that, having previously been convicted in Kansas of an
offense that required him to register as a sex offender, he traveled in interstate
commerce to Nebraska and failed to register there."
This is one of those illegal "gotch charges" plenty of states now require registration if your even in the state 24hr! never mind you never even had a room! with an address.
for all we know he went across the state line and bought a coke! even if he is guily of a violating a real LEGAL law 20 years probation is a JOKE.
Of couse given this info why is he even out!
"a 2003 Kansas conviction for attempted indecent liberties
with a child, for which Simons received 24 months probation,1 and (2) a 2005
Oklahoma conviction for first degree rape by force and fear, for which Simons
received a 30-year suspended sentence."
Why in the world did he receive a suspended sentence on a SECOND conviction. I have no problem giving almost anyone a 2nd chance but if you mess that one up i also have no problem HAMMERING you!
this part shows me he also had a RETARD for a lawyer!
"The plea agreement was
silent as to any conditions of supervised release to be imposed by the court."
even 5 years ago any idiot should have know to make the conditions a major part of any plea agreement!
hmm i stand corrected! he is an idiot and we need to lose the key! but not with this joke of a conviction!
"1In February 2005, Simons’s Kansas probation was revoked for the following
violations: (1) new convictions in Missouri and Oklahoma; (2) failure to attend
treatment; (3) leaving the jurisdiction without permission; (4) failure to make
payments; and (5) failure to complete an evaluation."
Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 22, 2010 12:44:33 PM
Wait, wait, wait...they remanded the case because the prohibition of materials depicting nudity was too great a deprivation of liberty, but they didn't remand the case for the prohibition of going within 500 feet of "where children congregate" on the same grounds? In other words, he can't watch Toy Story 3 in a theater, but he can rent Sleepers.
Posted by: Res ipsa | Jul 22, 2010 2:00:40 PM