People ex rel. Combs v. LaVallee, 29 N.Y.2d 23 (1971)
A parolee is entitled to the assistance of counsel during a final parole revocation hearing, even if the revocation is based on a new criminal conviction committed while on parole.
Summary
Combs, a former state prisoner on parole, had his parole revoked after being convicted of third-degree assault. The Parole Board denied him the right to counsel at his final revocation hearing, citing a regulation that barred counsel for parolees convicted of new crimes. Combs sought habeas corpus relief, which was initially granted by the Wyoming County Court. The Appellate Division reversed, but the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the parolee was entitled to counsel. The Court of Appeals emphasized that revocation is not automatic and counsel could influence the Board’s decision regarding the length of time before the prisoner is reconsidered for parole.
Facts
In 1970, Combs was convicted of felonious sale of a dangerous drug and sentenced to a maximum of five years. He was released on parole in November 1971. In February 1972, a parole violation warrant was issued based on allegations of assault, associating with a criminal, failing to report to his parole officer, and absconding from supervision. He was arrested in Florida and returned to New York where he pleaded guilty to third-degree assault. At the parole revocation hearing, he was denied counsel because of the assault conviction. His parole was revoked based on the conviction and absconding.
Procedural History
Combs sought habeas corpus relief in Wyoming County Court, which granted his release and return to parole supervision. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the County Court’s judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether a parolee convicted of a new crime committed while on parole is entitled to the assistance of counsel at a final parole revocation hearing.
Holding
Yes, because revocation is not automatic and counsel could influence the Parole Board’s discretion regarding the length of time before the prisoner is reconsidered for parole, and other factors related to the sentence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on its prior holding in People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, which established the right to counsel at parole revocation hearings. While the Supreme Court’s decision in Gagnon v. Scarpelli made the right to counsel dependent on the circumstances of each case, the New York Court of Appeals stated it was not required to retreat from its holding in Menechino, which was based, in part, on the State Constitution.
Even with a new criminal conviction, revocation is not automatic; it rests in the Parole Board’s discretion. “The offense committed or the circumstances, including the facts which may have induced a plea to a lesser offense, surrounding the crime may be such that counsel by offering testimony or effective reasoning might persuade the board not to revoke parole.” Moreover, counsel can assist in determining the period of time before the prisoner is reconsidered for parole. Effective counsel may be able to obtain more favorable treatment for the parolee.
The Court invalidated a Parole Board regulation (7 NYCRR 1.19 [c]) that barred counsel from final parole revocation hearings for parolees convicted of a crime while on parole, finding it inconsistent with the parolee’s right to counsel under the State Constitution.