People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison, 27 N.Y.2d 376 (1971)
Due process under the New York State Constitution requires that a parolee be represented by counsel at parole revocation hearings, as the outcome of the hearing directly impacts the individual’s liberty.
Summary
Menechino, imprisoned for murder, had his parole revoked for technical violations: associating with ex-convicts and providing false information to his parole supervisor. He was not represented by counsel at the revocation hearing. The New York Court of Appeals held that parolees are constitutionally entitled to counsel at revocation hearings. The court reasoned that a parole revocation hearing is an accusatory proceeding where the parolee’s liberty is at stake, necessitating the assistance of counsel to ensure a fair determination of the facts. This right is grounded in due process, guaranteeing a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Facts
In 1947, Menechino was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 20 years to life. He was paroled in 1963 after serving 16 years.
In December 1964, he was declared delinquent for violating parole conditions.
In March 1965, he was taken into custody.
In April 1965, a parole revocation hearing was held where he was charged with associating with individuals having a criminal record and giving false information to his parole supervisor.
Menechino, without counsel, admitted to the charges.
His parole was revoked, and he was barred from reconsideration for at least two years.
Procedural History
Menechino initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of his right to counsel and other procedural safeguards at the revocation hearing; it was dismissed as untimely.
He then filed a habeas corpus proceeding in Dutchess County, arguing deprivation of due process rights at the revocation hearing.
Special Term dismissed the writ.
Menechino appealed directly to the New York Court of Appeals on constitutional grounds.
Issue(s)
Whether a parolee is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at a parole revocation hearing under the New York State Constitution.
Holding
Yes, because a parole revocation hearing involves the right of an individual to continue at liberty or be imprisoned, which falls within the due process provision of the New York State Constitution.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found the principle in Mempa v. Rhay sufficiently broad to encompass parole revocation, stating that, “the necessity for the aid of counsel in marshaling the facts, introducing evidence of mitigating circumstances and in general aiding and assisting the defendant to present his case * * * is apparent.”
The court emphasized that a parole revocation hearing is an accusatory proceeding where the parolee’s liberty is at stake, requiring a factual determination regarding alleged misconduct.
“When all the legal niceties are laid aside a proceeding to revoke parole involves the right of an individual to continue at liberty or to be imprisoned. It involves a deprivation of liberty just as much as did the original criminal action and * * * falls within the due process provision of section 6 of article I of our State Constitution.”
The court rejected the argument that parole is a mere privilege, asserting that once a state undertakes proceedings affecting liberty, it must do so consistently with constitutional privileges.
The court highlighted the importance of counsel in ensuring a fair and accurate factual presentation, particularly in refuting ambiguous charges.
The court found that the right to be heard would be “of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel.”
The court determined that Menechino’s failure to request counsel at the hearing did not constitute a waiver of his right to counsel because he was not advised of that right.
The court stated that requiring obedience to the demands of due process and granting parolees a hearing at which they will be represented by counsel will further the purpose of the parole system, which is to rehabilitate convicted criminals, by creating a belief in a fair and objective parole procedure.