Document: 520 U.S. 143117 S.Ct. 1148137 L.Ed.2d 270 Leroy L. YOUNG, et al., Petitioners,v.Ernest Eugene HARPER. No. 95-1598. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 9, 1996. Decided March 18, 1997. Syllabus * Oklahoma's Preparole Conditional Supervision Program (preparole or Program) took effect whenever state prisons became overcrowded and authorized conditional release prisoners before their sentences expired. The Pardon Parole Board determined who could participate in it, an inmate be placed on preparole after serving 15% his sentence. An was eligible for parole only one-third sentence had elapsed, Governor, based Board's recommendation, decided to grant parole. participants parolees were released subject similar constraints. Upon reviewing respondent's criminal record prison conduct, simultaneously recommended him under Program. At that time, he served 15 years a life After spent five apparently uneventful months outside penitentiary, Governor denied parole, whereupon ordered to, did, report back prison. Despite claim summary reincarceration deprived liberty without due process violation Fourteenth Amendment, habeas relief by, successively, trial court, Oklahoma Criminal Appeals, Federal District Court. Tenth Circuit reversed, holding sufficiently like participant entitled procedural protections set forth Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 471, 92 2593, 33 484. Held: Program, as it existed when respondent released, equivalent understood Morrissey. Morrissey's description "nature interest parolee continued liberty'' just easily have applied while preparole. In compliance with procedures, from expiration See U.S., at 477, S.Ct., 2598. He kept own residence; sought, obtained, maintained job; lived generally free incidents imprisonment. id., 481-482, 2600-01. Although not permitted use alcohol, incur other than educational debt, travel county permission, required regularly officer, limits parolee's did render such beyond protection. Id., 478, 2598-2599. Some factors asserted by petitioners differentiate Meachum Fano, 427 215, 228, 96 2532, 2540, 49 451-that purpose reducing overcrowding, preparolee serve receive earned credits, remained within custody Department Corrections, aware been transferred higher security level if parole-do not, fact, appear distinguish two programs all. Other differences identified petitioners-that participation Board, conferred parole; escaped preparolees prosecuted though they prison, revocation, leave any circumstances, State officer's permission-serve apart specific terms Oklahoma, but more general class appears differed name alone. Pp. ____-____. 64 F.3d 563 (CA 10 1995), affirmed. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Sandra D. Howard, City, OK, petitioners. Margaret Winter, appointed this Court, Annapolis, MD, respondent. Justice THOMAS 1 This case presents narrow question whether program employed reduce overcrowding its person 484 (1972) removed it. We hold program, structured time alone, affirm decision Appeals Circuit. 2 As pertinent case, operated which inmates conditionally sentences. One Program). population system exceeded 95% capacity. Okla. Stat., Tit. 57, §365(A) (Supp.1990). sentence, §365(A)(2) (Supp.1990), 57 §332.7(A) role placement both preparolees. itself prisoner would paroled. we describe further Part II, infra, constraints those imposed parolees. 3 October 1990, Ernest Harper's conduct incarcerated, murders. Before release, underwent orientation, during reviewed "Rules Conditions Pre-Parole Supervision,'' see App. 7, executed document indicating "underst[ood] being classified community depend[ed] upon [his] each these expectations,'' 6. penitentiary. Nonetheless, On 14, 1991, telephoned informed Governor's decision, told later day. 4 Respondent filed petition writ corpus court complaining return process. 852 P.2d 164 (Okla.Crim.App.1993). concluded removal impinged "degree confinement,'' out attach. 165. found " [d]ispositive issue'' fact "was granted Oklahoma.'' Ibid. noted adopted procedure subsequently cases 90 days denial determination should continue According "such gives sufficient notice is may governor exercises discretion declines parole.'' 5 fared no better 28 U.S.C. §2254. But reversed. (1995). It "more closely resembles probation even permissive forms institutional confinement'' [d]ue therefore mandates least described '' 566-567. Petitioners sought certiorari limited "is minimum imprisonment; and, thus, protected Due Process Clause Amendment.'' Pet. Cert. i. certiorari, 517 ____, 116 1846, 134 948 (1996), because find Morrissey, affirm.1 II 6 DB1S"The essence completion condition abide certain rules balance sentence.'' liberty'': 7 [H]e can gainfully family friends form enduring attachments normal life. Though properly subjects many restrictions applicable citizens, very different confinement . has relied implicit promise will revoked fails live up conditions.'' 482, 2600-2601. 8 passage To sure, unlimited. permission. 7-8. And officer. 7. similarly limited, 2598-2599, 9 do ask us revisit Morrissey; merely dispute falls compass. Our inquiry, argue, controlled instead 451 (1976). There, avoiding intrastate transfer "too ephemeral insubstantial trigger long officials whatever reason all.'' 2540; also Sandin Conner, 515 115 2293, 2297, 132 418 contend nothing "transfe[r] degree "classification supervised environment,'' Brief which, transfers setting, involved interest. support argument lower classification identify several aspects said programs. Others None differences-real imagined-supports view having anything 11 first take phantom differences. are outset purposes different. intended "to overcrowding'' designed help reintegrate into society.'' Reply 10. alleged difference less seems. over-crowding, §332.7(B) And, Program's requirement work attend school belies notion concerned moving bodies teeming yards. brief below, one Corrections "places reintegration Appellees 95-5026 (CA10), p. n. 2. 12 "an continues receives credits , whereas revoked, deduct 11. review statute however, reveals "entitled deduction all parole'' that, credit against §350 13 next argue preparolees, unlike parolees, Corrections. evidenced officer weekly provide itinerary. 13. loss explain why regular visits rendered "in custody'' parolee, make visits. 28a. Likewise, provision "be disciplinary proceedings established Corrections'' event "violate rule period supervision,'' §365(E) "custodial'' status Department's violation. 14 Petitioners, final non-existent distinction, through discretionary power, denies parole,'' does enjoy same parolee. 20. Preparole, petitioners, thus akin furlough conditioned participant's behavior extrinsic events. By reasoning, lacked "implicit promise'' so complied conditions 2601. concedes reasoning petitioners' relates furloughs, challenges premise regarding assertion knew result reincarceration, rely-as throughout litigation-on promulgated August nearly returned Procedure 004-011 (1991), 56a.2 provision, little relevance case. 16 Nor presented evidence substantiate limitation release. closest come direct orientation Item says: "Reviewed options available denial.'' 5. Mindful 004-011, amended reincarcerated, possible read item terminated denied. mere possibility insufficient overcome showing facially complete, written 7-9, about denial. 17 Counsel claims participating always reincarcerated them Tr. Oral Arg. 8. absence effect-and points none-this rebut seemingly complete Rules us, therefore, argument-that events-is illusory, analogy inapposite.3 18 some actual between version convincing point out, regard, Oklahoma; 477-478, addition, "escape[d]'' §365(F) "escaped'' prosecution, revocation That punishment failure potentially greater diminish liberty. note 27a. minor prisoner's ability think, alter fundamentally parole-like nature Program.4 III 19 conclude kind Morrissey.5 judgment 20 ordered. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. contends jurisdiction. disagree. A timely rehearing toll running 90-day filing until disposition petition. Missouri Jenkins, 495 33, 46, 110 1651, 1660, 109 31 (1990). rehearing. late, "leave file late suggestion en banc,'' authority do. Fed. Rule Proc. 40(a). Moreover, granting rehearing, treated mandate issued 41(a). satisfied subsequent filed. silent denial's effect. 43a-52a. again 1994, now provides [i]nmates [preparole] remain unless process.'' 38a. Equally illusory argument, made reimprison reason. absolute discretion, contention. comparison informed, roughly contemporary 27a-30a, that-except "escape'' provisions-the sets essentially identical. now. occasion pass State's amendments since present-day

Category: 3