Consequently, the Court finds no violation of Morrissey's first requirement of a preliminary interview.
MeGee somehow attempts to argue that the Revocation Hearing Election Form presented to MeGee at the interview fails to comply with the due process requirements of Morrissey and entitles him to some form of relief. As the basis for this allegation, he relies on a statement which appears on page 1 of that form and reads "the prisoner is not entitled to a local revocation hearing, however, if he admits he has violated any of the conditions of his release or if he has been convicted of violating a law while under supervision." The Court finds no language in Morrissey which is contrary to this statement. Also, no progeny of Morrissey hold that a local revocation hearing must be afforded an alleged parole violator even though he has admitted violating the conditions of his parole and being convicted of an offense while on parole. To the extent that MeGee relies on the "preliminary hearing" aspect of Morrissey, found at page 485, 92 S. Ct. 2593 of the opinion, the Court has already found that such a hearing was afforded to him. Although MeGee's revocation hearing was not held at or near the place of his arrest but rather in Lewisburg, he nevertheless was interviewed in South Carolina by Probation Officer Graham within five days of his arrest. Thus, the quoted language on the election form in no way affected MeGee's right to a preliminary hearing. Once Probation Officer Graham made his determination of probable cause, grounds for MeGee's continued detention and return to Lewisburg were established. Morrissey, at p. 487, 92 S. Ct. 2593.
MeGee next contends that his Parole Revocation Hearing was defective under Morrissey for three reasons. One, the evidence against him was not disclosed to him or his counsel. Two, he was denied the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Three, he was given a meaningless statement of reasons for the parole revocation.
The case against MeGee was relatively simple. The extent of the evidence against him was the two crimes which he admitted committing while on parole. There were no adverse witnesses. Consequently, all the evidence against him was disclosed and there were no witnesses for him to confront. MeGee's third ground for his claim that the Parole Revocation Hearing was defective is also without merit. The reasons given him for revocation are sufficient to allow this Court to ascertain the factors considered by the Board in reaching its decision and state adequate grounds for revocation, i.e., conviction of a crime while on parole. MeGee's reliance on Craft v. Attorney General, 379 F. Supp. 538 (M.D.Pa.1974) is misplaced. A very important factor in that case which is lacking here is the existence in Craft of the Parole Board's guidelines for parole release consideration, 39 C.F.R. § 2.20, which, this Court held in Craft, already take into account the seriousness of the offense for which an individual has been incarcerated. Nothing analogous to those parole release guidelines exists in this case. This is not a parole release case.
MeGee does challenge the manner in which the parole violator's warrant was issued and executed. Its issuance was based on two factors, one of which was, in MeGee's opinion, minor and the other of which was in fact, erroneous. Consequently, MeGee claims, the warrant was invalid, and the inclusion of the subsequent drunken driving conviction renders his entire parole revocation void. MeGee appears to be arguing that if a parole violator's warrant is erroneously issued, but in good faith, and in the interim the parolee commits a crime and is subsequently arrested, the intervening crime may not be considered as a grounds for parole revocation. The Court feels that the statement of the argument refutes it. In evaluating a parolee's conduct, a parole board is entitled to take into account any possible parole violation whether it occurred prior to the issuance of the warrant or after the issuance but before the execution.
MeGee was held some four months at Lewisburg until afforded a parole revocation hearing. Morrissey requires that a revocation hearing must be given within a reasonable time after the parolee is taken into custody. The Morrissey court viewed a lapse of two months as not unreasonable. This Court is disturbed by the length of time which it took the Parole Board to reach MeGee's case. However, given the fact that MeGee had admitted parole violations, the Court does not feel that at this time that delay standing alone is enough to overturn his parole revocation.
An appropriate order will be entered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.