Michael R. Poe v. State of Texas--Appeal from 69th District Court of Dallam County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-04-0259-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D APRIL 11, 2005 ______________________________ Ex parte MICHAEL R. POE, Appellant _________________________________ FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAM COUNTY; NO. 3120-3; HON. RON ENNS, PRESIDING _______________________________ Memorandum Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, J.J. Michael R. Poe appeals from a letter ruling of the trial court denying his request for an exemption from the obligation to register as a sex offender. Via five issues, he contends that the laws requiring him to so register, until his death, do not apply to him retroactively and that, if they do, they are unconstitutional because they do. We overrule each issue and affirm the order. Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 1993 and placed on community supervision. In 1997, the State moved to revoke his community supervision. The motion was granted, and the trial court sentenced appellant to eight years imprisonment. In that same year, the Texas Legislature amended the state s law requiring sexual offenders to register and extended the duty of those convicted of aggravated sexual assault to continue to register for life. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC . ANN . art. 62.12(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2005). So too did it specify that the change applied to reportable offenses (such as aggravated sexual assault) that occurred on or after September 1, 1970. Id. art. 62.11(a). Since appellant committed the reportable offense for which he was convicted after September of 1970, the obligation to register for his lifetime applied and applies to him. Finally, the retroactive application of the extended duty has been held constitutional. See Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (so holding). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s order. Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
