Title: Foggy v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

108 Ariz. 470 (1972) 501 P.2d 942 Henry FOGGY, Appellant, v. ARIZONA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES; Keith E. EDWARDS, Chairman, Walter S. Michael, Vice Chairman, Walter G. Jacobs, Member, Real Parties in Interest, Appellees. No. 10711. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. October 6, 1972. Rehearing Denied November 14, 1972. Henry Foggy, in pro. per. Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by William P. Dixon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellees. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Pinal County denying petitioner's complaint for administrative review and/or statutory special action. We are called upon to determine whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles which denied, after hearing, an application for parole. The facts necessary for a determination of this matter are as follows. Petitioner was sentenced in 1965 to the Arizona State Prison for a term of life imprisonment. This sentence was later modified to a term of 11 years to life. See State v. Foggy, 101 Ariz. 459, 420 P.2d 934 (1966) and State v. Foggy, 107 Ariz. 307, 486 P.2d 789 (1971). See also Foggy v. State of Arizona ex rel. Eyman, 107 Ariz. 532, 490 P.2d 4 (1971). On 28 September 1970, petitioner personally appeared before the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles for a hearing on his application for parole which after a 10 minute hearing was denied. Although petitioner applied again for parole on 16 March 1971, he declined to appear *471 personally, since in his words, such an appearance would have been "useless." On 20 September 1971, plaintiff-prisoner appeared before the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles for consideration of his application for parole. At the conclusion of a 10-15 minute hearing, he was asked to wait outside the hearing room and after a short deliberation by the Board, the petitioner was informed in writing that his application had been denied. Petitioner wrote the Arizona Parole Board requesting information concerning the Board's decision to which the Board's Vice Chairman responded. The letter stated in part as follows: The prisoner then filed a petition in the Superior Court of Pinal County entitled "Complaint for Administrative Review and/or Statutory Special Action." The Superior Court issued the following minute entry: Appellant brings this appeal contending that the Superior Court does have authority under our statutes to review the decisions of the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles. While we agree that the Superior Court has the power to review proceedings of the Board to determine the absence of due process in the conduct of a parole hearing, it is apparent that the legislature intended, by giving the Board the "exclusive power" to grant parole, to deny the courts the right to review the decisions of the parole board: In the instant case, it is apparent that not only did the Board afford the petitioner a hearing in conformity with the statutes (§ 31-411 et seq., A.R.S.), but the letter to the petitioner from the Board's Vice Chairman indicates a thorough knowledge of petitioner's record and a conscious consideration of petitioner's application. Whether a prisoner is granted parole is a matter of grace and not a matter of right. § 31-412 A.R.S. State v. Howland, 103 Ariz. 250, 439 P.2d 821 (1968). It being apparent from the pleadings of the petitioner that he has been granted a due process hearing before the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles, the Superior Court was without jurisdiction to proceed further and the petitioner's complaint was properly dismissed. Order affirmed. HAYS, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.