Moore v. Avoyelles Correctional Center, No. 99-30101

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtDUHE
Citation253 F.3d 870
Parties(5th Cir. 2001) MICHAEL D. MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. AVOYELLES CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Decision Date25 June 2001
Docket NumberNo. 99-30101

Page 870

253 F.3d 870 (5th Cir. 2001)
MICHAEL D. MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
AVOYELLES CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 99-30101
UNITEED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, Fifth Circuit
June 25, 2001

Page 871

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before DUHE, PARKER, Circuit Judges, and Lindsay1, District Judge.

DUHE, Circuit Judge:

In this case, Appellant, a sex offender, contends that Louisiana violated the Constitution's proscription of ex post facto laws by subjecting him to a sex offender neighborhood notification law enacted after his conviction and sentencing for indecent behavior with a juvenile. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 1994, Appellant Michael D. Moore pleaded guilty in Louisiana state court to indecent behavior with a juvenile. The court sentenced him to five years' imprisonment, then suspended his sentence and placed him on probation. A condition of Moore's probation was that he register with law enforcers in the parish of his residence per the Louisiana sex offender registration statute, La. R.S. 15:542.

In 1995, the Louisiana Legislature amended the sex offender registration statute. As amended, the statute requires a sex offender placed on probation to notify his neighbors of his residence and his sex offender status. In 1996, a Louisiana court revoked Moore's probation and made executory his sentence because Moore failed to comply with the amended statute's neighborhood notification requirement. Moore successfully appealed the revocation to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Louisiana then appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the revocation of Moore's probation.

Moore subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that, as applied to him, Louisiana's neighborhood notification requirement was a constitutionally prohibited ex post facto law. Citing cases from the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits holding that sex offender neighborhood notification requirements do not constitute "punishment" violating the constitutional proscription of ex post facto laws, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Moore's habeas petition. The district court adopted the magistrate

Page 872

judge's recommendation and dismissed Moore's habeas petition. Moore appeals.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana's sex offender neighborhood notification law does not violate the Constitution's proscription of ex post facto laws. Article I, § 10 of the Constitution prohibits the states from enacting any law "which imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed." Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28 (1981) (citations omitted). Courts apply an "intent-effects" test to determine whether a law imposes "punishment" violating the Ex Post Facto Clause. The "intent-effects" test has courts ask whether 1) the legislature intended the sanction to be punitive, and 2) the sanction is "so punitive" in effect as to prevent courts from legitimately viewing it as regulatory or civil in nature. United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 288 (1996).

The Louisiana sex offender neighborhood notification law passes this test. Three Circuits have held that sex offender neighborhood notification laws like Louisiana's do not, according to the "intent-effects" test, impose "punishment" violating the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Russell v. Gregoire, 124 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 1997); Roe v. Office of Adult Probation, 125 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1997); Doe v. Pataki, 120 F.3d 1263 (2d Cir. 1997); E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3rd Cir. 1997). No Circuit has held that a sex offender neighborhood notification law like Louisiana's does impose "punishment" violating the Ex Post Facto Clause. Moore argues that Louisiana's law differs fundamentally from those reviewed by the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits. We do not think that it does.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 practice notes
  • Doe v. Fowle, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-06-113
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • August 18, 2011
    ...Haskell, 2001 ME 154, ¶ 9, 784 A.2d at 9-10 (citing United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 290 (1996); Moore v. Avoyelles Corr. Ctr., 253 F.3d 870, 873 (5th Cir. 2001) ("The most significant question under [the effects] stage of the 'intent-effects' analysis is whether the law[,] while......
  • Duke Energy Int'l v. Napoli, Civil Action No. H–09–2408.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • September 21, 2010
    ...plaintiff suffered some harm in Texas, however, is insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction in this forum. See Panda Brandywine, 253 F.3d at 870; Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 473 and n. 41 (5th Cir.2002) (explaining that the “effects” test of Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct......
  • Doe v. Fowle, Civil Action CV-06-113
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Maine
    • November 16, 2006
    ...Haskell, 2001 ME 154, ¶ 9, 784 A.2d at 9-10 (citing United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 290 (1996); Moore v. Avoyelles Corr. Ctr., 253 F.3d 870, 873 (5th Cir. 2001) ("The most significant question under [the effects] stage of the 'intent-effects' analysis is whether the law[, ] whil......
  • Duarte v. City of Lewisville, CASE NO. 4:12–CV–169
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
    • September 28, 2015
    ...journey comes to an end, and we apply that plain meaning to the facts before us.' " Moore v. Avoyelles Correctional Center, 253 F.3d 870, 872 (2001) (citing United States v. Barlow, 41 F.3d 935, 942 (5th Cir.1994) ). The Ordinance itself includes findings—the 136 F.Supp.3d 775"WHE......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
46 cases
  • Doe v. Fowle, CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-06-113
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • August 18, 2011
    ...Haskell, 2001 ME 154, ¶ 9, 784 A.2d at 9-10 (citing United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 290 (1996); Moore v. Avoyelles Corr. Ctr., 253 F.3d 870, 873 (5th Cir. 2001) ("The most significant question under [the effects] stage of the 'intent-effects' analysis is whether the law[,] while......
  • Duke Energy Int'l v. Napoli, Civil Action No. H–09–2408.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • September 21, 2010
    ...plaintiff suffered some harm in Texas, however, is insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction in this forum. See Panda Brandywine, 253 F.3d at 870; Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 473 and n. 41 (5th Cir.2002) (explaining that the “effects” test of Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct......
  • Doe v. Fowle, Civil Action CV-06-113
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Maine
    • November 16, 2006
    ...Haskell, 2001 ME 154, ¶ 9, 784 A.2d at 9-10 (citing United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 290 (1996); Moore v. Avoyelles Corr. Ctr., 253 F.3d 870, 873 (5th Cir. 2001) ("The most significant question under [the effects] stage of the 'intent-effects' analysis is whether the law[, ] whil......
  • Duarte v. City of Lewisville, CASE NO. 4:12–CV–169
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
    • September 28, 2015
    ...journey comes to an end, and we apply that plain meaning to the facts before us.' " Moore v. Avoyelles Correctional Center, 253 F.3d 870, 872 (2001) (citing United States v. Barlow, 41 F.3d 935, 942 (5th Cir.1994) ). The Ordinance itself includes findings—the 136 F.Supp.3d 775"WHE......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT