53 N.Y.2d 784 (1981)

When a parole board issues a release order, the Department of Correctional Services cannot unilaterally revoke that order and re-incarcerate the released individual without due process or proper legal basis.

Summary

James Henry Spinks was released on parole based on a certification by the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) that he had served his minimum term. Subsequently, DOCS determined the release was an error, and without informing the Parole Board or seeking to vacate the release order, correctional officers re-arrested Spinks. The New York Court of Appeals held that Spinks’ re-arrest and incarceration were unlawful because the original parole order remained valid and had not been withdrawn by the Parole Board. The court granted Spinks’ application for a writ of habeas corpus, ordering his release on parole, but without prejudice to the right of the respondent or the Board of Parole to institute such proceedings or take such other action to correct the alleged error, as they may be advised.

Facts

• James Henry Spinks was released from custody on August 26, 1978, pursuant to an order from the Board of Parole.
• The release was based on DOCS certification that Spinks had completed his minimum term.
• Later, DOCS employees concluded the parole order was based on an erroneous computation.
• Without informing the Parole Board or seeking to vacate its order, correctional officers arrested Spinks at his home in November 1978 and returned him to prison.

Procedural History

• Spinks sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing his re-arrest and incarceration were unlawful.
• The lower courts denied the writ.
• The New York Court of Appeals reversed, granting the writ and ordering Spinks’ release on parole.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Department of Correctional Services has the authority to unilaterally revoke a parole release order and re-incarcerate an individual based on its own determination of an error in the original release calculation, without involving the Parole Board or seeking judicial review.

Holding

1. No, because the Board of Parole issued an order authorizing the relator’s release and that this order had not been withdrawn by the board, his arrest and incarceration is without any lawful basis in the record.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that the Board of Parole had issued a valid order authorizing Spinks’ release, and this order had not been withdrawn. The court found that DOCS acted without lawful basis in re-arresting and incarcerating Spinks without informing the Parole Board or seeking to vacate the release order. The court reasoned that DOCS could not unilaterally override the Parole Board’s decision. The court explicitly stated that its determination was “without prejudice to the right of the respondent or the Board of Parole to institute such proceedings or take such other action to correct the alleged error, as they may be advised.” Justice Jasen dissented, arguing that DOCS had the authority and duty to correct the mistaken release, citing CPL 430.20(1), which mandates detention until the sentence is complied with. The dissent also relied on People v. Cavelli, 50 N.Y.2d 919, noting that mistaken release does not automatically confer a right to continued liberty. However, the majority’s decision highlights the importance of respecting the Parole Board’s authority and ensuring due process before re-incarcerating someone released under a valid parole order.