People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison, 54 N.Y.2d 337 (1981)
A parole violation warrant must be dismissed if the final revocation hearing is not held within the time mandated by Executive Law § 259-i and the regulations of the Board of Parole, and the delay is not attributable to the parolee.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a parole violation warrant should be vacated because the parolee’s final revocation hearing was not timely held, as required by Executive Law § 259-i and the Board of Parole’s regulations. The court distinguished this case from a prior decision where the parolee’s own requests for continuances contributed to the delay. Because the parole board failed to provide timely notice to the petitioner’s counsel prior to the revocation hearing, the court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for the warrant to be vacated and the petitioner restored to parole.
Facts
The petitioner, Menechino, was a parolee. He was alleged to have violated the terms of his parole. A final parole revocation hearing was scheduled. Prior to the hearing, Menechino’s counsel did not receive timely notice or the necessary accompanying papers as required by Executive Law and the Board of Parole regulations.
Procedural History
The case reached the Appellate Division, which ruled against Menechino. Menechino then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a parole violation warrant should be dismissed when the final revocation hearing is not held within the time mandated by Executive Law § 259-i and the regulations of the Board of Parole, and the delay is not attributable to the parolee.
Holding
Yes, because no timely notice, with accompanying necessary papers, was given to petitioner’s counsel prior to the final revocation hearing as mandated by section 259-i (subd 3, par [f], els [i], [iii]) of the Executive Law and the regulations of the board (9 NYCRR 8005.18 [c]), and the time to hold such hearing expired immediately thereafter.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the statutory and regulatory requirements for timely notice to the parolee’s counsel before a final revocation hearing. It emphasized that Executive Law § 259-i and 9 NYCRR 8005.18(c) mandate such notice along with necessary documents. Because the parole board failed to comply with these requirements, the court found that the warrant should have been dismissed. The court distinguished People ex rel. Martinez v. New York State Bd. of Parole, noting that in Martinez, the parolee’s own requests for continuances contributed to the delay in holding a timely revocation hearing. In this case, the delay was solely attributable to the Board. The court stated, “No timely notice, with accompanying necessary papers, was given to petitioner’s counsel prior to the final revocation hearing held on March 23, 1981, as mandated by section 259-i (subd 3, par [f], els [i], [iii]) of the Executive Law and the regulations of the board (9 NYCRR 8005.18 [c]), and the time to hold such hearing expired immediately thereafter. Accordingly, the warrant should have been dismissed.”