Matter of Saladeen v. Smith, 46 N.Y.2d 883 (1979)

A parole eligibility hearing does not substitute for a timely final parole revocation hearing, and failure to hold such a hearing requires dismissal of parole violation charges.

Summary

Saladeen commenced an Article 78 proceeding to vacate parole violation charges. Although the violations allegedly occurred in 1973, no final revocation hearing was held by 1977 when the proceeding began. An eligibility hearing on a new conviction occurred in 1977, over four years after the alleged parole violations. The Court of Appeals held that the parole eligibility hearing did not render the failure to hold a final revocation hearing academic, as the eligibility hearing’s nature and scope differed significantly from a revocation hearing, and the failure to hold a timely revocation hearing mandated the dismissal of the parole violation charges.

Facts

The petitioner, Saladeen, was accused of parole violations in 1973.

As of 1977, no final parole revocation hearing had been conducted regarding the 1973 alleged violations.

In 1977, a parole eligibility hearing was conducted concerning a new conviction, more than four years after the initial alleged parole violations.

Procedural History

Saladeen initiated an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the parole violation charges.

The Appellate Division’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a parole eligibility hearing conducted on a new conviction can serve as a substitute for a final parole revocation hearing regarding earlier alleged parole violations.

Holding

No, because the parole eligibility hearing’s nature and scope are different, it cannot serve as a substitute for a final revocation hearing, and the failure to hold a timely revocation hearing requires dismissal of the parole violation charges.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the appeal was not moot because the parole violation charges could affect the petitioner’s maximum parole expiration date, even after release from prison. The court emphasized the distinct nature and scope of a parole eligibility hearing compared to a final revocation hearing. The Court stated, “Due to its different nature and scope, the eligibility hearing could not serve as a substitute for the final revocation hearing.” A timely final revocation hearing is crucial for addressing alleged parole violations. The Court relied on precedent, citing Matter of Piersma v Henderson, 44 NY2d 982 and People ex rel. Walsh v Vincent, 40 NY2d 1049, to support the holding that the failure to hold a timely revocation hearing necessitates the dismissal of the parole violation charges. The court also disapproved of any interpretation of People ex rel. Schmidt v La Vallee (39 NY2d 886) suggesting otherwise.