People ex rel. Gonzales v. New York State Board of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 46 (1979)

A parolee is entitled to a prompt final parole revocation hearing, even when incarcerated in another state, unless the Board of Parole demonstrates that such a hearing cannot be held subject to its convenience and practical control.

Summary

Gonzales, a New York parolee, was incarcerated in New Jersey on new charges. New York issued a parole violation warrant but lodged it as a detainer. After completing his New Jersey sentence, Gonzales was transferred to New York, where revocation hearings were held. He argued these hearings were not prompt. The New York Court of Appeals held that Gonzales was entitled to prompt hearings, even during his out-of-state incarceration, unless the Parole Board could demonstrate that holding the hearings was impractical. The court emphasized the ease of interstate cooperation and the Board’s failure to show any actual impediment to holding timely hearings.

Facts

In December 1973, Gonzales was sentenced in New York to an indeterminate prison term. He was paroled to New Jersey in December 1976, subject to a New Jersey parole violation warrant. He was later paroled in New Jersey in April 1977, with New Jersey agreeing to supervise his New York parole. In May 1978, Gonzales was arrested in New Jersey and held on bail. New Jersey informed New York of the arrest. New York did not issue a parole violation warrant at that time. Gonzales was convicted in New Jersey of statutory rape, desertion, and nonsupport. New York issued a parole violation warrant in December 1978, lodging it as a detainer.

Procedural History

After Gonzales completed his New Jersey sentence in March 1979, he was transferred to New York. A preliminary parole revocation hearing was held on March 16, 1979, and a final revocation hearing was held on May 28, 1979, resulting in the revocation of his parole. Gonzales then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing denial of his right to prompt revocation hearings. Special Term dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that Gonzales’ right to hearings accrued only upon his return to New York. Two justices dissented. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a parolee, incarcerated in another state, is entitled to a prompt parole revocation hearing in New York, or whether the right to such a hearing is suspended until the parolee is physically returned to New York.

Holding

Yes, because a parolee is entitled to prompt revocation hearings if he is “subject to the convenience and practical control of the Parole Board,” and the burden of showing that the parolee is “beyond its convenience and control” lies with the Parole Board.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that a preliminary revocation hearing must be held within 15 days of the warrant’s execution, and the final hearing within 90 days of the preliminary hearing, as per Executive Law § 259-i. The court distinguished its holding from Moody v. Daggett, noting New York’s commitment to prompt hearings even when a parolee is incarcerated on new charges. The court reasoned that modern interstate cooperation makes it easier for New York to conduct hearings even when the parolee is in another state. The Board of Parole bears the burden of proving that holding a hearing in a timely fashion was impractical. The court stated, “In view of the relative ease of interstate communication and transportation and the vitality of legal and practical interstate co-operation today we perceive no sufficient justification for laying down a per se rule that imprisonment in a sister State means necessarily and always that the imprisoned parolee is not subject to the convenience and control of New York State parole authorities.” The court pointed to the Interstate Compact for Out-of-State Parolee Supervision (Executive Law § 259-m) which facilitates such cooperation. The court concluded that because New York failed to demonstrate any actual difficulty in holding a prompt hearing, Gonzales’ rights were violated. The court stated, “On this record it cannot be said that the New York State Board of Parole has met its burden of showing that relator was not or could not easily have been brought within its convenient and practical control during the period from December 15, 1978 to March 1, 1979. To characterize the present situation otherwise would be to denigrate the significance of the interstate compact to which all 50 States are parties and to ignore the failure of the Parole Board to advance other than hypothetical obstacles.”