Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/606/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:32:29+00:00

Document:
Respondent, upon pleading guilty in a Missouri state court to controlled substance offenses, was put on probation and given suspended prison sentences. Two months later, he was arrested for and subsequently charged with leaving the scene of an automobile accident, a felony. After a hearing, the judge who had sentenced respondent, finding that respondent had violated his probation conditions by committing a felony, revoked probation and ordered execution of the previously imposed sentences. After unsuccessfully seeking postconviction relief in state court, respondent filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court, alleging that the state judge had violated due process requirements by revoking probation without considering alternatives to incarceration. The District Court agreed and ordered respondent released from custody. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
1. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not generally require a sentencing court to indicate that it has considered alternatives to incarceration before revoking probation. The procedures for revocation of probation -- written notice to the probationer of the claimed probation violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity for the probationer to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence, a neutral hearing body, a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation, the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses unless the hearing body finds good cause for not allowing confrontation, and the right to assistance of counsel, Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471; Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 -- do not include an express statement by the factfinder that alternatives to incarceration were considered and rejected. The specified procedures adequately protect the probationer against revocation of probation in a constitutionally unfair manner. Pp. 471 U. S. 610-614.
of probation did not violate due process simply because the offense of leaving the scene of all accident was unrelated to the offense for which respondent was previously convicted or because, after the revocation proceeding, the charges arising from the automobile accident were reduced to the misdemeanor of reckless and careless driving. Pp. 471 U. S. 615-616.
O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except POWELL, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. MARSHALL, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BRENNAN, J., joined, post, p. 471 U. S. 617.
sentences. Nearly six years later, the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that respondent had been denied due process because the record of the revocation hearing did not expressly indicate that the state judge had considered alternatives to imprisonment. The District Court granted a writ of habeas corpus and ordered respondent unconditionally released from custody. 567 F.Supp. 882 (1983). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 735 F.2d 319 (1984). We granted certiorari, 469 U.S. 1033 (1984), and we now reverse.
On November 15, 1976, respondent Nicholas Romano pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Laclede County, State of Missouri, to two counts of transferring and selling a controlled substance. The charges resulted from Romano's attempt to trade 26 pounds of marihuana, which he had harvested, refined, and packaged, for what he thought was opium. App. 15, 27-28, 40. After the Missouri Department of Probation and Parole completed a presentence investigation, the trial judge held a sentencing hearing on April 13, 1977. Romano's attorney urged the court to order probation. He argued that the offenses had not involved any victim, that Romano had no previous felony convictions, and that, except for running a stop sign, he had not violated the law after his arrest on the controlled substance charges. Id. at 31-36. Both the Probation Department and the prosecutor opposed probation. Id. at 33, 36-38. The trial judge nonetheless concluded that probation was appropriate because the underlying charges did not involve an offense against the person. Id. at 43.
report and the fact that his "past track record [was] not too good." Ibid. The trial judge warned that, if any of the conditions of probation were violated, he would revoke probation and order Romano imprisoned under the terms of the suspended sentence. Id. at 41, 44. Only two months after being placed on probation, Romano was arrested for leaving the scene of an automobile accident. In an information issued on July 15, 1977, he was charged with violating Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 564.450, 564.460 (1959), replaced by Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 577.010, 577.060 (1978), a felony punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. The information alleged that Romano had struck and seriously injured a pedestrian with his automobile and, knowing that such injury had occurred, "unlawfully and feloniously" left the scene without stopping or reporting the accident. 1 Record 50.
driving. 1 Record 52. Romano was convicted on the reduced charges and ordered to pay a $100 fine. Id. at 53.
"alternatives to incarceration should have been considered, on the record, and if [the trial judge] decided still to send Romano to jail, he should have given the reasons why the alternatives were inappropriate."
567 F.Supp. at 886. Because Romano had been imprisoned for more than five years and had been paroled after he filed his federal habeas petition, the District Court concluded that the proper relief was to order him released from the custody of the Missouri Department of Probation and Parole. Id. at 887. The Court of Appeals agreed that due process required the trial judge to consider alternatives to incarceration in the probation revocation proceeding and to indicate on the record that he had done so. See 735 F.2d at 322, 323.
from Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972), and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973). We disagree. Nothing in these decisions requires a sentencing court to state explicitly why it has rejected alternatives to incarceration. Moreover, although Morrissey and Gagnon outline the minimum procedural safeguards required by due process, neither decision purports to restrict the substantive grounds for revoking probation or parole. Bearden v. Georgia recognized substantive limits on the automatic revocation of probation where an indigent defendant is unable to pay a fine or restitution. We have no occasion in the present case, however, to decide whether concerns for fundamental fairness prohibit the automatic revocation of probation in any other context.
In identifying the procedural requirements of due process, we have observed that the decision to revoke probation typically involves two distinct components: (1) a retrospective factual question whether the probationer has violated a condition of probation; and (2) a discretionary determination by the sentencing authority whether violation of a condition warrants revocation of probation. See Gagnon, supra, at 411 U. S. 784; cf. Morrissey, supra, at 408 U. S. 479-480 (parole revocation). Probationers have an obvious interest in retaining their conditional liberty, and the State also has an interest in assuring that revocation proceedings are based on accurate findings of fact and, where appropriate, the informed exercise of discretion. Gagnon, supra, at 411 U. S. 785. Our previous cases have sought to accommodate these interests while avoiding the imposition of rigid requirements that would threaten the informal nature of probation revocation proceedings or interfere with exercise of discretion by the sentencing authority.
body need not be composed of judges or lawyers. The probationer is entitled to written notice of the claimed violations of his probation; disclosure of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; a neutral hearing body; and a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. Id. at 411 U. S. 786. The probationer is also entitled to cross-examine adverse witnesses, unless the hearing body specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation. Finally, the probationer has a right to the assistance of counsel in some circumstances. Id. at 411 U. S. 790. One point relevant to the present case is immediately evident from a review of the minimum procedures set forth in some detail in Gagnon and Morrissey: the specified procedures do not include an express statement by the factfinder that alternatives to incarceration were considered and rejected.
also entitled to an explicit statement by the factfinder explaining why alternatives to incarceration were not selected.
We do not question the desirability of considering possible alternatives to imprisonment before probation is revoked. See, e.g., ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 18-7.3, and Commentary (2d ed.1980); National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Corrections, Standard 5.4, p. 158 (1973). Nonetheless, incarceration for violation of a probation condition is not constitutionally limited to circumstances where that sanction represents the only means of promoting the State's interest in punishment and deterrence. The decision to revoke probation is generally predictive and subjective in nature, Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 411 U. S. 787, and the fairness guaranteed by due process does not require a reviewing court to second-guess the factfinder's discretionary decision as to the appropriate sanction. Accordingly, our precedents have sought to preserve the flexible, informal nature of the revocation hearing, which does not require the full panoply of procedural safeguards associated with a criminal trial. Id. at 411 U. S. 787-790; Morrissey, supra, at 408 U. S. 489-490. We believe that a general requirement that the factfinder elaborate upon the reasons for a course not taken would unduly burden the revocation proceeding without significantly advancing the interests of the probationer. Cf. Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1, 442 U. S. 13-16 (1979) (discussing procedures where parole release decision implicated liberty interest).
"when other procedural safeguards have minimized the risk of unfairness, there is a diminished justification for requiring a judge to explain his rulings."
violation and provides an adequate basis for review to determine if the decision rests on permissible grounds supported by the evidence. Cf. Douglas v. Buder, 412 U. S. 430 (1973) (per curiam) (revocation invalid under Due Process Clause where there was no evidentiary support for finding that probation conditions were violated). Moreover, where the factfinder has discretion to continue probation, the procedures required by Gagnon and Morrissey assure the probationer an opportunity to present mitigating evidence and to argue that alternatives to imprisonment are appropriate. That opportunity, combined with the requirement that the factfinder state the reason for its decision and the evidence relied upon, accommodates the interests involved in a manner that satisfies procedural due process.
"the probationer has made all reasonable efforts to pay . . . yet cannot do so through no fault of his own, it is fundamentally unfair to revoke probation automatically without considering whether adequate alternative methods of punishing the defendant are available."
State, concluded that "depriv[ing] the probationer of his conditional freedom simply because, through no fault of his own, he cannot pay the fine" would be "contrary to the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment." Id. at 461 U. S. 673 (footnote omitted).
We need not decide today whether concerns for fundamental fairness would preclude the automatic revocation of probation in circumstances other than those involved in Bearden. The state judge was not required by Missouri law to order incarceration upon finding that Romano had violated a condition of his probation. The statute in effect at the time declared that the court "may in its discretion" revoke probation and order the commencement of a previously imposed sentence in response to a violation of probation conditions. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 549.101.1 (Supp.1965), repealed and replaced by Mo.Rev.Stat. § 559.036 (1978). But the statute also expressly provided that "[t]he court may in its discretion order the continuance of the probation . . . upon such conditions as the court may prescribe." Mo.Rev.Stat. § 549.101.1 (Supp.1965). Under Missouri law, the determination to revoke probation was at the discretion of the trial judge, who was obligated to make independent findings and conclusions apart from any recommendation of the probation officer. Moore v. Stamps, 507 S.W.2d 939, 948-949 (Mo.App.1974) (en banc). We must presume that the state judge followed Missouri law and, without expressly so declaring, recognized his discretionary power to either revoke or continue probation. Cf. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 372 U. S. 314-315 (1963).
finding that Romano had violated the conditions of his probation. 735 F.2d at 321; 567 F.Supp. at 885. The memorandum prepared by the sentencing court and the transcript of the hearing provided the necessary written statement explaining the evidence relied upon and the reason for the decision to revoke probation. Romano does not dispute that he had a full opportunity to present mitigating factors to the sentencing judge and to propose alternatives to incarceration. The procedures required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were afforded in this case, even though the state judge did not explain on the record his consideration and rejection of alternatives to incarceration.
As a substantive ground for challenging the action of the state court, Romano argues that, because the offense of leaving the scene of an accident was unrelated to his prior conviction for the controlled substance offenses, revocation of his probation was arbitrary and contrary to due process. This argument also lacks merit. The revocation of probation did not rest on a relatively innocuous violation of the terms and conditions of probation, but instead resulted from a finding that Romano had committed a felony involving injury to another person only two months after receiving his suspended sentence. The Fourteenth Amendment assuredly does not bar a State from revoking probation merely because the new offense is unrelated to the original offense. Nor is our conclusion in this regard affected by the fact that, after the revocation proceeding, the charges arising from the automobile accident were reduced to reckless and careless driving.
Given our disposition of the merits, we need not address the propriety of the relief ordered by the District Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, concurring.
I agree that revocation of probation need not be accompanied by an express demonstration on the record that alternatives to revocation were considered and found wanting before the decision to revoke was made. [Footnote 1] Because I have argued on several occasions that written explanations for particular decisions are constitutionally required, [Footnote 2] I write separately to explain my view as to why such explanations are not required in this setting.
their discretion. [Footnote 16] Indeed, the only constitutional limitation on this discretion is that revocation be a rational response to the violation; revocation need not be the only available response to be permissible. See Part II. The breadth of this discretion significantly attenuates the value that written consideration of alternatives might otherwise play. Finally, a requirement that sentencers go through on the record an almost limitless variety of options other than revocation would signficantly burden revocation hearings, for, given the number of options available, a statement of reasons rejecting each of them would amount to a lengthy document. On balance, then, due process does not require written reasons for rejecting nonincarceration alternatives to revocation.
That written reasons are not required for rejection of alternatives to revocation does not suggest that the Constitution allows probation to be revoked for any reason at all, or for any probation violation. On the contrary, under Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U. S. 660 (1983), as I read it, the decision to revoke probation must be based on a probation violation that logically undermines the State's initial determination that probation is the appropriate punishment for the particular defendant. Bearden held that probation cannot be revoked for failure to pay a fine and restitution, in the absence of a finding that the probationer has not made bona fide efforts to pay or that adequate alternative forms of punishment do not exist. If a probationer cannot pay because he is poor, rather than because he has not tried to pay, his failure to make restitution or pay a fine signifies nothing about his continued rehabilitative prospects, and cannot form the basis of a valid revocation decision. Revocation under these circumstances, the Court said, would be "fundamentally unfair." Id. at 461 U. S. 666, and n. 7, 461 U. S. 673.
Although Bearden dealt with only one basis for revocation -- failure to pay a fine and restitution -- Bearden's holding can be understood only in light of more general principles about the nature of probation and the valid bases for revocation. First, the State has wide latitude in deciding whether its penological interests will best be served by imprisonment, a fine, probation, or some other alternative. But in choosing probation, the State expresses a conclusion that its interests will be met by allowing an individual the freedom to prove that he can rehabilitate himself and live according to the norms required by life in a community. Bearden then recognizes that, once this decision is made, both the State and the probationer have an interest in assuring that the probationer is not deprived of this opportunity without reason. See also Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S. 484 (1972). To the probationer, who is integrating himself into a community, it is fundamentally unfair to be promised freedom for turning square corners with the State but to have the State retract that promise when nothing he has done legitimately warrants such an about-face. [Footnote 17] Similarly, it is irrational for the State to conclude that its interests are best served by probation, but then to conclude, in the absence of valid cause tracing to the probationer's conduct, that imprisonment is warranted.
change the rules in the middle of the game. [Footnote 18] See Wood v. Georgia, 450 U. S. 261, 450 U. S. 286-287 (1981) (WHITE, J., dissenting). A probation violation must therefore be such as to make it logical for the State to conclude that its initial decision to choose probation rather than imprisonment should now be abandoned.
15-year term. [Footnote 20] No doubt a violation may stir certain biases in judges who believe they have "taken a chance" on a probationer or in probation officers who feel personally at fault, but those biases do not authorize revocations that are solely vindictive or reflexive. Instead, given the nature of the liberty interest at stake, revocation must reflect a "considered judgment" that probation is no longer appropriate to satisfy the State's legitimate penological interests. Williams v. Illinois, 399 U. S. 235, 399 U. S. 265 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring in result).
that the time for making payments could be extended, the fine reduced, or the probationer ordered to perform some form of labor or public service in lieu of the fine. Ibid. The State need not establish that revocation is the only means of realizing its penological interests once a probation violation has been committed, but alternative sanctions available to the State surely are a relevant consideration in evaluating whether revocation is logically related to the nature of the underlying violation.
The "touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 558 (1974). Probationers, possessed of the conditional liberty interest created by probation, are protected by this standard, and the decision to revoke probation must therefore be rationally justifiable in light of alternative sanctions available and the nature of the underlying violation. This is not a demanding standard, given the breadth of reasons that can justify revocation, but it does impose substantive outer boundaries on revocation decisions.
either had some reason for seeking to cover up that fact or that he refuses to accept responsibility for his actions. The probation judge might have chosen some option other than revocation, but surely it was not irrational or illogical to conclude that Romano was no longer a good rehabilitative risk. Nor was the probation judge required to go through alternatives to revocation seriatim in the record. I therefore join the Court's opinion.
Respondent did not propose at the revocation hearing any specific alternatives to revocation, and there is therefore no need to address a situation in which the probationer specifically proposes such alternatives. See ante at 471 U. S. 609.
Ponte v. Real, ante at 471 U. S. 508-513 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1, 442 U. S. 40 (1979) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); see also Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U. S. 460, 459 U. S. 479 (1983) (STEVENS, J., dissenting in part); Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U. S. 458, 452 U. S. 468 (1981) (STEVENS, J., dissenting); cf. Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U. S. 424, 418 U. S. 445 (1974) (MARSHALL, J., concurring in judgment) (statutory interpretation).
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 397 U. S. 271 (1970).
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S. 489 (1972).
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973).
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 563 (1974).
Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480 (1980).
Gagnon, supra, at 411 U. S. 791.
Vitek, supra, at 445 U. S. 494-495 (requiring "a finding, not arbitrarily made, of good cause").
When judicial review is one of the elements relied on to assure that the process as a whole is reliable, written reasons may be required to enable that review to fulfill its role effectively. Cf. Wolff, supra, at 418 U. S. 565 ("[T]he provision for a written record helps to insure that administrators, faced with possible scrutiny by state officials and the public, and perhaps even the courts, where fundamental constitutional rights may have been abridged, will act fairly"); Ponte v. Real, ante at 471 U. S. 508-513, (MARSHALL, J., dissenting) (written explanation required when necessary, inter alia, to facilitate meaningful judicial review); Hewitt, supra, at 459 U. S. 495 (STEVENS, J., dissenting) ("A written statement of reasons would facilitate administrative and judicial review . . .").
See, e.g., Hewitt, supra, at 459 U. S. 493 (STEVENS, J., dissenting); Greenholtz, supra, at 442 U. S. 40 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting in part); Connecticut Bd. of Pardons, supra, at 452 U. S. 472 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
See, e.g., Harris v. Rivera, 454 U. S. 339, 454 U. S. 344-345, n. 11 (1981) (per curiam); Connecticut Bd. of Pardons, supra, at 442 U. S. 472 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
See, e.g., Dorszynski, supra, at 418 U. S. 457-459 (MARSHALL, J., concurring in judgment) (written reasons required when sentencing judge commanded by statute to give priority to particular factors in sentencing).
Gagnon incorporates for probation the due process requirements for parole revocation laid out in Morrissey, supra, which include "a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole." 408 U.S. at 408 U. S. 489.
Cf. Ponte, ante at 471 U. S. 508-513 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting) (written reasons required when necessary to assure meaningful judicial review); Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 459 U. S. 495 (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (same).
This principle underlies Douglas v. Buder, 412 U. S. 430 (1973) (Per curiam), where a probationer had been probated on the condition, inter alia, that he report to his probation officer "all arrests" for any reason and without delay. Although he was involved in a traffic accident and was cited for driving too fast, Douglas did not report either the incident or the citation for 11 days. His probation was revoked. We reversed, one prong of our holding being that defining these occurrences as an arrest would constitute so unforeseeable and surprising an interpretation of the special probation condition as to violate due process. See Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).
This norm of regularity in governmental conduct informs numerous doctrines. See, e.g., United States e rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U. S. 260 (1954) (Government bound by its own regulations); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. at 445 U. S. 489 (due process interest created by "objective expectation, firmly fixed in state law and official Penal Complex practice'"); Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 467 (BRENNAN, J., concurring) (liberty interests arise from "statute, regulation, administrative practice, contractual arrangement or other mutual understanding [that establish] that particularized standards or criteria guide the State's decisionmakers"); Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assn. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U. S. 29, 463 U. S. 42 (1983) (reasoned explanation required for agency revocation of validly promulgated rule); Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wichita Bd. of Trade, 412 U. S. 800, 412 U. S. 807-808 (1973) ("There is, then, at least a presumption that [previously chosen] policies will be carried out best if the settled rule is adhered to").
See generally Prellwitz v. Berg, 578 F.2d 190, 193, n. 3 (CA7 1978) ("[T]he due process clause may require more than just proving a breach of a condition of supervision to justify revoking probation; a subjective determination of whether the violation warrants revocation is also contemplated"); United States v. Reed, 573 F.2d 1020, 1024 (CA8 1978) ("The decision to revoke probation should not merely be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violations of the conditions imposed upon the offender").
See, e.g., Cottle v. Wainwright, 493 F.2d 397 (CA5 1974) (describing revocation and imposition of 7-year sentence for two incidents of alleged public drunkenness occurring 2 months before end of 7-year parole term).
That a violation is "willful" in the sense that the probationer had notice of the condition violated and could have adhered to it does not automatically make revocation constitutional. Probation typically is conditioned on a general obligation to obey all state and local laws, but all citizens live under similar obligations. Nonetheless, we recognize some violations of the law as minor, such as certain traffic offenses. Such violations should be treated as no more major when committed by a probationer; they do not generally justify revocation. That remains true notwithstanding the State's inclusion of a probation condition generally requiring conformity to all state laws. The minimum requirements of fair process, both substantively and procedurally, are defined by the Due Process Clause, not by state law. See Cleveland Bd. of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U. S. 532 (1985). Statutes authorizing revocation "for any cause" deemed sufficient by the court may, as applied to particular cases, violate these principles. See, e.g., Va.Code § 19.2-306 (1983).
It may be that violation of any special condition of probation, as opposed to violation of the general obligation to obey all laws, would justify revocation if the probationer has advance notice of this possibility. If a probationer is given a short list of reasonable commands he is obligated to follow, willful refusal to abide by these specific conditions may indicate that the probationer is simply incapable of complying with authority. Such a conclusion would justify revocation. A similar conclusion might logically follow from minor violations of a general obligation clause if those violations are repeated or flagrant.
This finding of historical fact is subject to the rule of Sumner v. Mata, 455 U. S. 591 (1982).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 549
 § 559
 § 549
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 19
 v.