7 results for 'cat:"Parole" AND cat:"Due Process"'.
J. Winokur finds that the circuit court properly denied defendant a writ of mandamus seeking another parole interview and consideration of a reduced sentence for aggravated assault because the commission has discretion to decide when to hold parole interviews, and defendant did not have a legal right to an interview. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Winokur, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: 1D2023-0798, Categories: parole, Assault, due Process
J. Readler finds the lower court properly dismissed the released inmate's lawsuit against the parole board members on the grounds of absolute immunity. Their decision to deny an early parole hearing based on changes in Tennessee law involved quasi-judicial authority that bars any suit for damages. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Readler, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 22-6004, Categories: parole, due Process
J. Leland finds the lower court erroneously granted the parole board's motion to dismiss due process claims filed by the inmates who were denied parole following a full board hearing. There is no blanket policy under Ohio law that requires victim statements be kept confidential prior to such a hearing; therefore, the inmates' due process rights to a full parole hearing were violated when the board refused to disclose victim letters and thereby prevented them from presenting a complete case based on an accurate record. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Leland, Filed On: November 14, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4104, Categories: parole, due Process
J. Livingston finds that the district court properly held that state prison officials had qualified immunity in claims contending merit time allowance permitting early release to parole had been revoked without due process. The inmate had a liberty interest in the allowance, which is earned through good behavior and program accomplishments, but revocation procedures are not clearly spelled out. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Livingston, Filed On: October 12, 2023, Case #: 22-1353, Categories: parole, due Process
J. Hudson finds the circuit court properly denied the inmate’s petition for declaratory judgment and mandamus challenging what he alleges is the Arkansas Department of Correction’s illegal change of his discharge date. The inmate was convicted for 10 felony offenses and was released on suspended sentence terms and returned to custody due to violations. A period where the inmate was missing from his residence and in the custody of mental-health facilities does not constitute time served. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Hudson, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: CV-22-702, Categories: parole, due Process
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Zahra finds the circuit court improperly reversed the Parole Board’s granting of parole three times to the individual convicted for criminal sexual conduct with his adolescent stepdaughter. The court of appeals has also improperly affirmed the circuit court. Both courts’ finding that there were substantial and compelling reasons for departure from parole guidelines impermissibly substituted their judgment for that of the Parole Board. The judgments are reversed, and the Board’s grant of parole is reinstated.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court, Judge: Zahra , Filed On: July 24, 2023, Case #: 164311, Categories: parole, Sex Offender, due Process
Per curiam, the Supreme Court of Ohio finds the inmate's due process rights were not violated when the trial court revoked his parole. The written notice for his hearing clearly explained he was accused of sexual contact with a woman without her consent, while his attorney was also able to present a full defense at the hearing. Meanwhile, the inmate's argument about whether a woman's calf is considered an erogenous zone under Ohio law is irrelevant because evidence in the record indicated he also touched the victim's breast. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-1717, Categories: Evidence, parole, due Process