Siraguso v. New York, 266 N.Y. 57 (1934)

The Parole Board has discretion in determining when to consider a prisoner for parole, especially when multiple consecutive sentences are involved, and is not obligated to act until the combined minimum sentence for all crimes has been served.

Summary

Siraguso sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Parole Board to consider him for parole on his first sentence, arguing that its minimum term had been served. He was serving two consecutive sentences. The court held that the Parole Board has discretion in deciding when to consider parole, especially with consecutive sentences. The Board is not legally obligated to act until the combined minimum terms of all sentences have been served. The court emphasized that parole is not a right and the Board’s discretion prevails as long as the prisoner hasn’t served the full term minus good behavior credits.

Facts

Louis Siraguso was convicted of robbery in the first degree and sentenced on March 28, 1927, to a term of 20 to 40 years.
Prior to the robbery conviction, he committed manslaughter in the first degree and was convicted of that crime on June 14, 1927, and sentenced as a first offender to a term of 10 to 20 years, to commence after the expiration of the robbery sentence.
His minimum term for the robbery sentence expired on May 21, 1934, due to good conduct credits.
The combined minimum sentence for both crimes would not expire until May 1940.

Procedural History

Siraguso applied for a writ of mandamus in Special Term to compel the Parole Board to convene and consider him for parole. The Special Term denied his application.
The Appellate Division reversed the Special Term and granted the motion for peremptory mandamus.
The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the Parole Board has a legal duty to convene and consider a prisoner for parole on his first sentence when the prisoner is serving multiple consecutive sentences, and the combined minimum term for all sentences has not yet expired.

Holding

No, because the Parole Board has discretion in determining when to consider a prisoner for parole, particularly when consecutive sentences are involved. The Board is under no legal duty to act until the combined minimum terms of all sentences have been served. The time of release shall be “discretionary with the board of parole, but no such person shall be released until he has served such minimum sentence.”

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that sections 210 and 212 of the Correction Law and section 115 of the Executive Law relate to eligibility for “release on parole.” The Board must meet “at such times as may be necessary for a full study of the cases of all prisoners eligible for release on parole and to determine when * * * and to whom such parole may be granted.” (Executive Law, § 115.)
The court highlighted that the Parole Board has discretion in deciding when to consider a prisoner for parole and is not required to take action until the combined minimum sentences have been served.
The court emphasized that the minimum sentences for both crimes were already fixed by the court’s sentence and legislative acts. Although the minimum sentence for the robbery had expired, the manslaughter sentence was still running.
The court noted that no prisoner is entitled to release as a matter of right until they have served their maximum term, minus credits for good behavior, which had not yet occurred in Siraguso’s case.
Therefore, the court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and affirmed the Special Term’s denial of the writ of mandamus.