In re Anthony R., 29 N.Y.2d 532 (1971)

Juvenile parolees, like adult parolees, are entitled to due process protections, including notice, a hearing, and the assistance of counsel, before their parole can be revoked.

Summary

This case addresses whether juvenile delinquents have a right to a hearing and the assistance of an attorney before their parole is revoked. Two juveniles, Anthony R. and Roderick R., had their parole revoked without a hearing after new delinquency petitions were filed against them, even though the charges were dismissed. The New York Court of Appeals held that due process requires a fair hearing, including the right to counsel, before a juvenile’s parole can be revoked. The court reasoned that revocation of parole constitutes a deprivation of liberty, triggering due process protections. This ensures a fair and accurate determination of whether parole conditions were violated.

Facts

Anthony R. and Roderick R. were adjudged juvenile delinquents in November 1966 and placed on probation.
In July 1967, their probation was revoked, and they were placed in Highland State Training School for 18 months.
They were paroled, but neither they nor their parents were informed of the conditions of parole.
In June 1970, new juvenile delinquency petitions, alleging assault and petit larceny, were filed against them, but the charges were dismissed.
Their parole was revoked without a hearing based on the dismissed charges, and they were returned to the training school.

Procedural History

The boys’ law guardian sued out writs of habeas corpus, arguing that the lack of a hearing violated due process.
Special Term denied the requested relief.
The Appellate Division reversed, sustained the writs, and ordered the boys discharged, concluding that due process requires a fair hearing before parole revocation.

Issue(s)

Whether juvenile delinquents have a right to a hearing and the assistance of an attorney before their parole can be revoked.

Holding

Yes, because due process demands notice, a hearing, and the aid of counsel before a juvenile’s parole can be revoked. “[T]he proceeding involves a deprivation of liberty just as much as did the original criminal action and, by that token, falls within the protective ambit of due process.”

Court’s Reasoning

The court relied on the principle established in People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, which granted adult parolees the right to counsel in revocation hearings. The court extended this principle to juveniles, emphasizing that a parolee may not be deprived of liberty without a hearing to determine if parole was violated. The court quoted Powell v. Alabama stating 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 stated, “[N]o tribunal, whether board or court, should be allowed to base its determination on a possibly mistaken view of the facts owing to the parolee’s inability, absent counsel, to make a proper factual presentation.”

The court also cited In re Gault, stating that fundamental fairness and due process require that a juvenile be accorded basic rights, including notice of the charges, right to counsel, right to confrontation and cross-examination, privilege against self-incrimination, right to a transcript of the proceedings, and right to appellate review.

The court rejected the argument that the hearing should be informal, noting that the appearance and actuality of fairness are essential for juveniles. Citing In re Gault, the court stated, “They suggest that the appearance as well as the actuality of fairness, impartiality and orderliness—in short, the essentials of due process—may be a more impressive and more therapeutic attitude so far as the juvenile is concerned”.

The court emphasized that a lawyer’s assistance is needed to marshal the facts and introduce evidence of mitigating circumstances to present the juvenile’s case. Quoting from Menechino, “participation by counsel need be no greater than is required to assure, to the court as well as to the parolee, that the court is accurately informed of the facts and the presentation of testimony need be no greater than is necessary for the same purpose.” The court reiterated that a fair and objective parole procedure is essential for rehabilitating offenders.