People ex rel. আলোচনা v. Warden, 39 N.Y.2d 446 (1976)
A parolee held on an unrelated criminal charge is entitled to a prompt final parole revocation hearing.
Summary
This case addresses whether a parolee, detained on an unrelated criminal charge, has the right to a prompt final parole revocation hearing. The New York Court of Appeals held that such a right exists. The court reasoned that despite the lack of a fixed time for the final hearing, the Parole Board must conduct it within a reasonable time. The parolee has a right to counsel at the hearing to argue factors influencing the length of re-incarceration. The Court noted the parolee’s potential prejudice due to the parole detention preventing release even if bail were posted on the new charges.
Facts
The relator (parolee) was detained on an unrelated criminal charge while on parole. He sought a prompt final revocation hearing concerning his parole status. The Parole Board did not provide a prompt hearing.
Procedural History
The case originated as a habeas corpus proceeding. The Appellate Division’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a parolee held on an unrelated criminal charge is entitled to a prompt final parole revocation hearing.
Holding
Yes, because the Parole Board is required to hold such a hearing within a reasonable time, even if there is conclusive cause to believe a condition of parole has been breached.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that while there is no fixed time limit for a final parole hearing, Correction Law § 212(7) requires the Parole Board to hold the hearing within a reasonable time. Citing Morrissey v. Brewer, the court emphasized the parolee’s right to a hearing, including the right to counsel, because of the factors influencing the parole decision, specifically the period to be served under the prior unexpired sentence (citing People ex rel. Donohoe v. Montanye). The court stated: “Despite conclusive cause to believe a condition of parole has been breached, the parolee is entitled to a final revocation hearing, with the right to counsel, because of the divers factors which may influence the parole decision in fixing the period, if any, to be served under the prior unexpired sentence”.
The court dismissed the argument that the parolee should be compelled to waive his privilege against self-incrimination in the parole hearing, stating, “That is the parolee’s choice with the advice of counsel. If he wishes he may waive the hearing or seek its adjournment but where he demands a hearing, as here, he is entitled to it.”
The Court also noted that the parolee established a basis for prejudice because posting bail on the new charge would have been futile while the parole detention remained. The court also stated that the Parole Board regulation barring the right to counsel in final revocation hearings, where the parolee has been convicted of a crime while on parole, violates the State Constitution, citing People ex rel. Donohoe v. Montanye.