Case Title: FISHER v CRIST

Citation: 

Docket Number: 14312

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-05-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14312 I N THE S U P R E W E C O W O F THE S T A T E OF M%JTANA 1979 AIBEXF KENNE;TH FISHER, Petitioner, -VS- KlQR CRIST, Respondent. ORIGINAL PFacEmING: Counsel of Record: For Petitioner: Gregory J. Skakles, Anaconda, Mntana A l b e r t Kenneth Fisher, Pro Se, D e e r Lodge, Mntana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Mntana Nick Rotering, Helena, Mntana Ted Mizner , County Attorney, Deer I d g e , Mntana Filed : M&; ' : 1979 Submitted: April 30, 1979 Decided : 'KAY 2 2 1 9 x M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P e t i t i o n e r , A l b e r t Kenneth F i s h e r , f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of habeas corpus i n t h i s Court on May 17, 1978. W e appointed counsel t o r e p r e s e n t him and subsequently stayed t h e proceedings i n t h i s Court pending a n e v i d e n t i a r y hearing i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Powell County. The hearing was held on December 7, 1978, b e f o r e t h e Honorable Robert J. Boyd, and r e s u l t e d i n an o r d e r dated January 19, 1979, g r a n t i n g respondent's motion t o quash and d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n . The o r d e r c o n s t i t u t e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law. P e t i t i o n e r f i l e d an amended p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of habeas corpus i n t h i s Court on A p r i l 6, 1979. A response t o t h e amended p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d A p r i l 30, 1979, by a S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t Attorney General f o r t h e Department of I n s t i t u - t i o n s . Because t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n was f i l e d some t i m e ago, p e t i t i o n e r w a s excused from compliance w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s r e c e n t l y adopted requirements with r e s p e c t t o habeas corpus r e l i e f . On J u l y 9, 1974, p e t i t i o n e r was sentenced t o s e r v e t e n y e a r s i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n a f t e r pleading g u i l t y i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court, G r a n i t e County, t o t h e o f f e n s e of bur- g l a r y . On May 13, 1976, p e t i t i o n e r w a s paroled t o S e a t t l e , Washington, pursuant t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Uniform A c t f o r Out-of-State P a r o l e e Supervision, s e c t i o n s 95-3201 through 95-3202.4, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 46-23-1101 through 46-23-1106 NCA. I n September 1976 p e t i t i o n e r was a r r e s t e d i n Spokane, Washington, and charged w i t h a felony. P e t i t i o n e r pleaded g u i l t y t o "misdemeanor t h e f t t h r e e " a t t h e suggestion of a Washington p a r o l e o f f i c e r who agreed t o recommend t o t h e Montana a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t he be continued on p a r o l e i n r e t u r n f o r h i s p l e a . The recommendation was a p p a r e n t l y approved by t h e Montana a u t h o r i t i e s . P e t i t i o n e r was r e l e a s e d from t h e Spokane j a i l on January 3 , 1977. About s i x weeks a f t e r h i s r e l e a s e h e began t h e journey back t o S e a t t l e b u t was re- a r r e s t e d along t h e way i n Ellensburg, Washington, t h i s t i m e f o r h i t c h h i k i n g . H e was r e l e a s e d i n about a week and pro- ceeded t o S e a t t l e . On A p r i l 19, 1977, p e t i t i o n e r ' s Spokane p a r o l e o f f i c e r i s s u e d a r e p o r t of v i o l a t i o n which p r e c i p i t a t e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s e v e n t u a l r e t u r n t o Montana. The r e p o r t s p e c i f i e d two vio- l a t i o n s : " V i o l a t i o n No. 1: F i s h e r v i o l a t e d h i s p a r o l e - - by f a i l i n g t o r e p o r t a s i n s t r u c t e d t o t h e Spo- kane D i s t r i c t O f f i c e i n Spokane, Washington on 4-12-77. " V i o l a t i o n - - No. 2: F i s h e r v i o l a t e d S p e c i a l Condition 1 o f h i s p a r o l e r u l e s by f a i l i n g t o cooperate f u l l y w i t h t h e S e a t t l e I n d i a n Alcoholism Program i n S e a t t l e , Washington d u r i n g February and March of 1977." The r e p o r t was w r i t t e n by t h e same Spokane p a r o l e o f f i c e r who had recommended F i s h e r ' s continuance on p a r o l e t h e previous September i n r e t u r n f o r h i s g u i l t y p l e a . H e had a p p a r e n t l y p e r m i t t e d p e t i t i o n e r t o r e t u r n t o S e a t t l e on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t he r e p o r t t o him by m a i l and p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e a l c o h o l program. Following t h i s r e p o r t , a warrant was i s s u e d by t h e Montana a u t h o r i t i e s , and on May 5, 1977, p e t i t i o n e r was a r r e s t e d i n S e a t t l e . P e t i t i o n e r was n o t g i v e n a p r e l i m i n a r y o n - s i t e o r probable cause hearing i n Washington o r else- where. P e t i t i o n e r was r e t u r n e d t o t h e Montana S t a t e Prison on June 16, 1977, following a b r i e f e x t r a d i t i o n proceeding i n Washington i n which he was represented by counsel. On June 30, 1977, t h e Board of Pardons conducted a p a r o l e revocation hearing and issued a decision revoking p e t i - t i o n e r ' s parole. N o record w a s k e p t of t h e hearing except f o r a minute e n t r y noting t h e revocation. A f t e r h i s revocation hearing, p e t i t i o n e r was provided with t h e following f o u r reasons f o r h i s p a r o l e revocation: "Your p a r o l e was revoked because you f a i l e d t o r e p o r t ; d i d n o t cooperate with t h e S e a t t l e Indian Alcohol Program t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t they terminated you from t h e program (completion of t h e program w a s a s p e c i a l condition of t h e Board); f a i l e d t o appear i n c o u r t on warrant issued f o r misdemeanor charge; and w e r e con- v i c t e d of misdemeanor robbery and w e r e given 6 months i n t h e county j a i l . You w e r e passed t o discharge. " P e t i t i o n e r p r e s e n t s a number of i s s u e s i n h i s p e t i t i o n , b u t w e f i n d one t o be d i s p o s i t i v e of t h i s case: whether t h e f a i l u r e t o provide p e t i t i o n e r with a preliminary, o n - s i t e hearing v i o l a t e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s Fourteenth Amendment r i g h t t o due process. W e f i n d t h a t it did. P e t i t i o n e r argues t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o a preliminary o n - s i t e hearing i n Washington and t h a t absent such a hearing t h e revocation procedure followed i n t h i s c a s e f a i l e d t o s a t i s f y t h e d i c t a t e s of Morrissey v. B r e w e r (1972), 408 U . S . 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 3 3 L.Ed.2d 484, a s w e l l as t h e a p p l i - c a b l e s t a t u t e s . The S t a t e presents two arguments i n t h e f a c e of t h i s . F i r s t , t h e S t a t e argues t h a t a parolee may waive t h e preliminary o n - s i t e hearing and t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court found such a waiver. Second, t h e S t a t e argues t h a t absent a waiver, p e t i t i o n e r ' s parole w a s properly revoked because conviction of a new offense obviated t h e n e c e s s i t y of a preliminary on-site hearing. Addressing t h e waiver argument f i r s t , we note t h a t s e c t i o n 95-3202.1, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-23-1103 PICA, provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "Where supervision of a parolee . . . i s being administered pursuant t o t h e i n t e r s t a t e compact f o r t h e supervision of parolees . . . t h e appro- p r i a t e j u d i c i a l o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t i e s i n t h i s s t a t e s h a l l n o t i f y t h e compact adminis- t r a t o r of t h e sending s t a t e whenever, i n t h e i r view, consideration should be given t o r e t a k i n g o r re-incarceration f o r a p a r o l e . . . v i o l a t i o n . P r i o r t o t h e giving of any such n o t i f i c a t i o n , a hearing s h a l l be-held i n accordance with t h i s - ---- -- a c t within a reasonable t i m e , unless such hear- i n g i s waived & t h e parolee . . ." (Emphasis -- added. ) I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e D i s t r i c t Court made t h e following finding regarding waiver: "According t o t h e testimony of t h e Defendant he w a s afforded counsel i n t h e S t a t e of Washington following h i s a r r e s t and challenged h i s e x t r a - d i t i o n . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o determine whether t h e P e t i t i o n e r o r h i s counsel a t t h a t time made any request o r demand f o r an o n - s i t e hearing and it appears t h a t t h e o b j e c t i o n s w e r e t o t h e e x t r a d i t i o n r a t h e r than a preliminary revocation of parole hearing. The ~ o b r t t h e r e f o r e f i n d s and concludes t h a t t h e P e t i t i o n e r waived his ---- r i g h t - - - t o an o n - s i t e hearing." (Emphasis added.) -A*- - - - - - - - - - - -- - r i g h m n - s i t e - - - hearing. " (Emphasis added. ) A f t e r reviewing t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e proceedings i n t h e lower c o u r t , w e f i n d no evidence t o support t h i s conclu- sion. The f a i l u r e t o demand an o n - s i t e hearing cannot be construed t o be a waiver of t h a t r i g h t nor can such a waiver be presumed t o r e s u l t under t h e s e f a c t s . Absent an express waiver appearing i n t h e record, we are l e f t with t h e S t a t e ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t p e t i t i o n e r ' s Spokane conviction was s u f f i - c i e n t t o s a t i s f y t h e preliminary hearing requirement. This i s not so. I n Morrissey t h e Supreme Court s t a t e d t h e following with r e s p e c t t o t h e requirement of a preliminary hearing: ". . . t h e parolee should be given n o t i c e t h a t t h e hearing w i l l t a k e place and t h a t i t s pur- pose i s t o determine whether t h e r e i s probable cause t o b e l i e v e he has committed a p a r o l e vio- l a t i o n . The n o t i c e should s t a t e what p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n s have been alleged. A t t h e hearing t h e parolee may appear and speak i n h i s own behalf; he may bring l e t t e r s , documents, o r i n d i v i d u a l s who can g i v e r e l e v a n t information t o t h e hearing o f f i c e r . O n r e q u e s t of t h e parolee, a person who has given adverse i n f o r - mation on which p a r o l e revocation i s t o be based i s t o be made a v a i l a b l e f o r questioning i n h i s presence. However, i f t h e hearing o f f i c e r determines t h a t an informant would be sub- jected t o r i s k of harm i f h i s i d e n t i t y were disclosed, he need n o t be subjected t o confron- t a t i o n and cross-examination." Morrissey, 408 U.S. a t 486-87, 92 S.Ct. a t 2603, 3 3 L.Ed.2d a t 497-98. P e t i t i o n e r was never n o t i f i e d t h a t t h e S t a t e intended t o r e l y on h i s Spokane conviction t o revoke h i s parole. H e w a s t o l d t h a t he was charged with two v i o l a t i o n s , both of which he contested and should have been t h e s u b j e c t of a probable cause hearing i n S e a t t l e where he could have had t h e oppor- t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t witnesses and, perhaps, r e f u t e t h e a l l e - gations. With r e s p e c t t o t h e Spokane conviction, p e t i t i o n e r had already been excused from t h e revocation sanction f o r t h a t o f f e n s e on t h e condition t h a t he plead g u i l t y and serve a s h o r t sentence. For t h e s e reasons, p e t i t i o n e r ' s p a r o l e revocation d i d n o t s a t i s f y t h e requirements of Morrissey o r t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s , and h i s p a r o l e must be r e i n s t a t e d . The Board of Pardons i s given t h i r t y days from t h e d a t e of t h i s d e c i s i o n t o help p e t i t i o n e r develop and t o approve a new p a r o l e plan f o r p e t i t i o n e r . I f a plan has n o t been approved within t h i r t y days, p e t i t i o n e r nevertheless s h a l l be r e l e a s e d from prison a s a parolee s u b j e c t t o t h e super- v i s i o n of t h e appropriate a u t h o r i t i e s . We concur: 4"n4Jm%4 CW/f Justice QfL Q . % L J - , / Justices