Title: Relation v. Vermont Parole Board

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

RELATION_V_VT_PAROLE_BOARD.94-163; 163 Vt 534; 660 A.2d 318

[Filed 14-Apr-1995]

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press. 


                                 No. 94-163


Ralph Relation                                    Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Washington Superior Court

Vermont Parole Board and Its                      November Term, 1994
Members: Alice Hafner, Lorraine
Graham, Ernest Torpey, Arthur
Silvester and Elaine Charboneau


Alan W. Cheever, J.

Robert Appel, Defender General, and Judith A. Ianelli, Prisoners' Rights
Office, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellant 


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     JOHNSON, J.   Today, we hold that Article 10, Chapter 1 of the Vermont
Constitution protects the liberty interest of the parolee by requiring the
State to establish a parole violation by a preponderance of the evidence
prior to revoking parole.  Because the superior court upheld the substantial
evidence standard for parole revocation in 28 V.S.A.  552(b)(2), we
reverse. 

     Plaintiff was convicted of petty larceny and possession of stolen
property in May 1991 and was sentenced to a term of six months to four years.
 In March 1992, he was paroled by the Vermont Parole Board.  Plaintiff's
parole officer filed a request for violation of plaintiff's parole conditions
in January 1993.  The Parole Board found by substantial evidence that
plaintiff had violated five conditions of parole, and then revoked parole. 
Plaintiff was incarcerated. 

     Plaintiff filed a declaratory action in superior court challenging the
substantial evidence standard in 28 V.S.A.  552(b)(2) under Article 10,
Chapter 1 of the Vermont Constitution. He maintained that the substantial
evidence standard allowed the Parole Board to find a violation of parole on
less than a preponderance of the evidence and thus violated his state
constitutional 

 

due process rights.  The superior court held that the State's interest in
swift administrative proceedings for parole violations outweighed the risk of
unjust infringement of the parolee's liberty interest.  It therefore
concluded that the standard in  552(b)(2) does not offend Article 10. 
Plaintiff appeals. 

     Section 552(b)(2) provides that "[i]f the alleged violation is
established by substantial evidence, the board may continue or revoke the
parole, or enter such other order as it determines to be necessary or
desirable."  The substantial evidence standard requires "that there be `such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.'"  Baxter v. Vermont Parole Bd., 145 Vt. 644, 647-48,