People ex rel. আলোচনা Allen v. Warden, 54 N.Y.2d 583 (1981)
When a parole revocation hearing is adjourned multiple times, even at the request of the parolee, and is ultimately held in absentia near the 90-day statutory limit, any procedural irregularities do not automatically warrant vacating the parole violation warrant if a new hearing can adequately protect the parolee’s rights.
Summary
Allen, a parolee, had his final parole revocation hearing adjourned three times, with at least two continuances at his request. On the 81st day, the hearing was held in his absence because he was attending a criminal trial. The hearing officer, noting the impending 90-day limit under Executive Law § 259-i(3)(f)(i), proceeded in absentia, preserving Allen’s right to cross-examination later. Allen’s parole was revoked, and he sought a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted to the extent of ordering a new hearing. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the warrant need not be vacated simply because a new hearing could not be held within the 90-day limit, absent evidence of bad faith by the respondent, and a new hearing adequately protects Allen’s rights.
Facts
Allen was a parolee whose final parole revocation hearing was adjourned on three separate occasions.
At least two of those adjournments were at Allen’s request.
On the 81st day after the warrant was issued, the revocation hearing was held without Allen because he was attending a separate criminal trial.
The hearing officer noted the 90-day statutory time limit for the hearing.
The hearing officer decided to proceed with the hearing in Allen’s absence but preserved Allen’s right to cross-examine witnesses at a later date.
Allen’s parole was revoked.
Procedural History
Allen petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus.
The lower court granted the petition, ordering a new parole revocation hearing.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a parole revocation warrant must be vacated when a revocation hearing is held in absentia due to the parolee’s attendance at a criminal trial, and a new hearing cannot be held within the 90-day limit specified by Executive Law § 259-i(3)(f)(i).
Holding
No, because absent evidence of bad faith by the respondent, any shortcomings in the revocation hearing raise only a question of irregularity in the statutory procedures, and a new hearing adequately protects the parolee’s rights.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the focus should be on whether the parolee’s rights are adequately protected, rather than on strict adherence to the 90-day rule when circumstances, such as the parolee’s own requests for adjournment or attendance at a criminal trial, contribute to the delay.
The Court emphasized that there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the respondent (the Warden or parole authorities). This lack of bad faith was a crucial factor in the court’s decision. If there had been evidence that the parole authorities deliberately delayed the hearing to prejudice the parolee, the outcome might have been different.
The court stated that “inasmuch as there is no evidence of bad faith here by respondent, any shortcomings in the revocation hearing raise only a question of irregularity in the statutory procedures.”
The Court concluded that ordering a new hearing, where the parolee could fully participate and exercise his rights, was a sufficient remedy. Vacating the warrant entirely would be an overly drastic measure, especially considering the circumstances of the delay. The court reasoned there was “no logical basis for holding that the warrant must be vacated merely because a new hearing could not be held within the 90-day limit. A new hearing adequately protects relator’s rights.”