Senator: New law to rein in parolees

Correction: A new law requiring parolees accused of committing a new violent or sexual felony to be held until a revocation hearing went into effect Aug. 16. This article incorrectly identified the date.

A law that takes effect today would have prevented a convicted rapist who faces new rape charges from being released from a county jail, according to the law’s sponsor.

ADVERTISEMENT

More headlines

Sen. David Sanders, R-Little Rock, pointed to parolee Tony Perry as an example of the type of offender he had in mind when he filed Senate Bill 258 in February.

Perry was arrested and charged with rape on June 30 but was released from jail before a parole-revocation hearing could be held.

Under state Department of Community Correction policy, Perry should have been kept in jail until he could appear at the revocation hearing.

Sanders’ bill, which became Act 1029 of 2013, requires that parolees arrested on new violent or sexual felony charges be incarcerated until they attend a parole-revocation hearing. The law also compels a parole official to give the state’s Parole Board the information necessary to issue an arrest warrant for someone who violates parole and to schedule the hearing.

Sanders said he filed his bill after discussions with prosecutors and law-enforcement officials about cases similar to Perry’s and lax adherence to parole policies.

“Just because it’s policy doesn’t mean it’s followed,” Sanders said. “Policy can be waived. Policy can be ignored. … We needed the force of law behind it.”

Perry remained at large Wednesday, and is being sought by federal and state law-enforcement agencies.

Perry was convicted in 1991 of the rape of a 9-year old. He was paroled in 1997, and was subsequently in and out of state facilities for several years. He was last paroled from prison in September 2011 after serving less than a year of two concurrent 84-month sentences for theft by receiving.

Perry’s arrest in June was tied to the rape of a 14-year old girl in March, according to detectives.

A Department of Community Correction policy that took effect June 22 should have meant that Perry was held at the Pulaski County jail until he appeared before the Parole Board for a revocation hearing.

Previously, parole policies stated that a parole-revocation hearing should be requested if a parolee was arrested on a new violent or sexual-related felony.

But jail officials had not received a parole warrant on Perry, or a request to hold him for a parole officer, by the time of a bail hearing Aug. 6, after which Perry posted a $40,000 bond - 37 days after his arrest.

The parole agency’s interim director, Sheila Sharp, said Perry’s parole officer was “on leave” while Perry was incarcerated and that the Little Rock office’s area manager as well as assistant manager “should have taken care of” Perry’s case and reassigned it until the officer’s return.

The Little Rock parole office had a nearly 50 percent turnover over the past year, according to Sharp, who said the office had to call in extra officers from nearby parole offices and outsource some parolee supervision to managers in different areas to cover the caseloads.

That flux, Sharp said, also may have contributed to the parole agency’s delay in seeking a revocation hearing for Perry, which has been set for Tuesday.

The acting director refused to name the officer or say why he was on leave, but she said he was not working between June 3 and June 20 and again from July 1 to July 4.

When asked if there was a policy to cover such situations, Sharp said the burden of a parolee’s case falls on management.

She added that her office is trying to develop a speedier means to ensure that holds are automatically put on parolees through the Arkansas Crime Information Center once a notice of their bookings at a county jail is posted.

In Perry’s case, the Parole Board didn’t sign off on a technical warrant for his arrest on a parole violation until Aug. 2.

That warrant didn’t appear in the Arkansas Crime Information Center’s database until Aug. 12, Pulaski County jail officials said, and the jail was never given notice to hold Perry beyond a judge’s no-bail order after his arrest. Judge Leon Johnson set bail Aug. 6.

In a letter sent on Aug. 1, Sharp asked local authorities to hold any parolees charged with new felonies or sexual offenses.

On Monday, Sharp said that letter should have been enough to ensure that Perry wasn’t released from jail.

Pulaski County Sheriff Doc Holladay said his office lacks the authority to hold a suspect on a “blanket request” and needs parole officers to actively notify the office on who to keep locked up. Otherwise, if a defendant can meet the bail set by a court, the jail has to release him.

“We can’t legally hold someone just because we think that there might be a forthcoming hold,” Holladay said. “That hold needs to be placed immediately [by parole officials], and we don’t have the authority to place it. That’s something they have to do.”

With the new law taking effect today, Sharp said her office is “going to do whatever necessary to make [compliance] happen.”

The agency’s area managers are reaching out to county sheriffs and police chiefs to improve communications among parole officers and jail officials, she said.

On Tuesday, Sharp’s office sent a memorandum to all Arkansas sheriffs and chiefs of police reminding them of the agency’s policy and of the new law.

The memorandum states that until her agency is able to automate the process between the time of a parolee’s arrest and the issuance of a parole warrant or a parole officer’s request for a hold, her officers will be available “day or night” to law-enforcement officials.

On Wednesday, the Pulaski County jail held 1,209 people. It has a capacity of 1,210, Holladay said, and about a quarter of those in the jail were being held on pending parole matters or because they were awaiting transfer to prison.

Even with the new law, parole officials need to be mindful of jail limitations, the sheriff said.

“That law puts the burden on [parole officials] to ensure that a [parole] warrant is issued, to ensure the detention of those individuals. This law was not directed to sheriffs or chiefs, this law was written directly to the Parole Board,” Holladay said.

“What I anticipate happening here, with the impact of this new law, is that the DCC and parole [officials] will be more timely at administering those revocation hearings and making recommendations on the parolees.”

Sanders said the law covers all levels of the state’s criminal justice system.

“It is incumbent upon law enforcement and our corrections establishment to work out a process to make sure that [a case like Perry’s] doesn’t happen,” Sanders said.

Sanders said he wasn’t worried that the new law will put a greater burden on jails.

“I think the result of the law will be … that individuals on parole who shouldn’t be out on the streets will not be out on the streets. So individuals who pose a threat to public safety will be off the streets,” Sanders said. “That is the focus.”

Front Section, Pages 1 on 08/15/2013

Upcoming Events