Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/693/629/230433/
Timestamp: 2019-09-15 22:43:34
Document Index: 648106304

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4214', '§ 4214', '§ 4214', '§ 4214', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

Robert Michael Hanahan, Petitioner-appellant, v. Dennis M. Luther, Warden and William Pilcher, Chiefprobation Officer, Respondents-appellees, 693 F.2d 629 (7th Cir. 1982) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 1982 › Robert Michael Hanahan, Petitioner-appellant, v. Dennis M. Luther, Warden and William Pilcher, Chief...
Robert Michael Hanahan, Petitioner-appellant, v. Dennis M. Luther, Warden and William Pilcher, Chiefprobation Officer, Respondents-appellees, 693 F.2d 629 (7th Cir. 1982)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 693 F.2d 629 (7th Cir. 1982)
Argued March 29, 1982. Decided Aug. 27, 1982. *Opinion Oct. 5, 1982
We find that the district court applied the correct standard of review in this case. As we said in Luther v. Molina, 627 F.2d 71 (7th Cir. 1980), " [i]t is apparent that Congress intended to give the Parole Commission great latitude in making decisions relative to [parole] revocation." Id. at 75. Although this wide discretion does not eliminate the possibility of habeas corpus relief, it does mean that district courts should grant such relief only in limited circumstances. Id. at 75-76. Thus, when a district court reviews a decision of the Parole Commission on a habeas corpus petition, " [t]he inquiry is not whether the Board is supported by the preponderance of the evidence, or even by substantial evidence; the inquiry is only whether there is a rational basis in the record for the Board's conclusions embodied in its statement of reasons." Zannino v. Arnold, 531 F.2d 687, 691 (3d Cir. 1976). See DeFillo v. Fitzpatrick, 378 F.2d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 1967).
Under this standard of review the district court correctly held that " [b]ased on the totality of the evidence presented, ... the decision reached by the Commission and affirmed by the Board of Appeals was rationally based and was not arbitrary or capricious." At the revocation hearing, Hanahan admitted having associated with Robert Pullia and with Paul Panczko, both known felons, on several occasions. Police officers testified at the hearing that Hanahan had rendezvoused with known felons in a savings and loan parking lot; that one of these felons had transferred firearms and tools to the van driven by Hanahan; that Hanahan had led the police on a high-speed chase in an attempt to escape; and that handguns, a crowbar, and masks had been found in the van. It is clear from these facts that the Commission had rational bases for concluding that Hanahan violated the conditions of his parole. We therefore agree with the district court that the decision of the Parole Commission, as affirmed by the Board of Appeals, should not be disturbed on this ground.
Hanahan's next argument is that when the National Appeals Board affirmed the finding that Hanahan had associated with known criminals, it relied in part on the Circuit Court of Cook County transcript of his testimony regarding a charge of possession of a stolen motor vehicle. Hanahan contends that consideration of the transcript, without notice to him, violated his right to be apprised of the evidence against him. See 18 U.S.C. § 4214(a) (2) (D); U.S.Const. amends. 5 & 6.
Hanahan is correct that a parolee has a right to be apprised of the evidence against him and to confront and cross-examine witnesses; however, the district court held, and we agree, that Hanahan's rights were respected in this case. The Supreme Court has emphasized the informal and flexible nature of parole revocation proceedings, and has specifically sanctioned the use of evidence "that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 2604, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972). Moreover, both Hanahan and his attorney were present at the state court proceeding where they had a full opportunity to participate. Finally, Hanahan's attorney himself brought to the Board's attention Hanahan's state court acquittal on the stolen vehicle charge. Hanahan cannot, therefore, reasonably claim that he was unaware of his state court testimony or the uses to which it could be put by the Appeals Board. Under these circumstances, we find that the consideration of the state court transcript did not violate Hanahan's right to be apprised of the evidence against him.2
In the course of his parole revocation proceedings, Hanahan requested access to the police reports relating to his December 3, 1979, arrest. The Parole Commission refused to release the reports because they contained information that might reveal the identity of a confidential informant or result in physical harm to someone. Hanahan argues that the failure to produce these reports, which were relied upon by the Commission, violated his right to be apprised of the evidence against him under 18 U.S.C. § 4214(a) (2) (D).
The revocation of Hanahan's parole was, therefore, supported by an abundance of evidence apart from the police reports. Hanahan was aware of all of this evidence and had an opportunity to challenge it before both the Commission and the Board. The district court was correct in deciding that, in these circumstances, the Commission's refusal to disclose the reports was harmless error. See United States v. Batencort, 592 F.2d 916, 917 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Marr, 428 F.2d 614, 616 (7th Cir. 1970).IV
Hanahan's fourth argument on appeal is that he was denied a prompt preliminary hearing, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 4214(a) (1) and in violation of his right to due process of law. His fifth argument is that the delay in providing a final revocation hearing with witnesses present also denied him due process. We address these contentions together.
Due process requires that a parolee receive a revocation hearing within a reasonable time after being taken into custody. United States ex rel. Sims v. Sielaff, 563 F.2d 821, 825 (7th Cir. 1977). Three months has been mentioned in some cases as the outside limit of reasonableness. United States ex rel. Hahn v. Revis, 520 F.2d 632, 638 (7th Cir. 1975), vacated and modified, 560 F.2d 264 (7th Cir. 1977). The three-month time period is, however, no more than a guideline, United States ex rel. Sims v. Sielaff, 563 F.2d 821, 827 (7th Cir. 1977), and the sanction for exceeding it is not necessarily to dismiss the parole violator warrant, Smith v. United States, 577 F.2d 1025, 1028-29 (5th Cir. 1978).
A parolee's claim that his due process rights have been violated by the delay preceding his parole revocation hearing cannot be judged using arbitrary guidelines. United States ex rel. Sims v. Sielaff, 563 F.2d 821, 828 (7th Cir. 1977). Rather, we must apply the standards suggested in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972), for determining whether a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied. United States ex rel. Sims v. Sielaff, 563 F.2d at 828. The four factors to be considered under Barker are: the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2191, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972). No single factor is either necessary or sufficient to a finding of a deprivation of a constitutional right. Each should be considered together with the relevant circumstances in "a difficult and sensitive balancing process." Id. at 533, 92 S. Ct. at 2193. We must, therefore, consider the course of Hanahan's parole revocation proceedings in light of these four factors. See United States ex rel. Sims v. Sielaff, 563 F.2d 821, 828-29 (7th Cir. 1977).
The third factor is whether the parolee asserted his right to a prompt hearing. The Barker Court held that a defendant's silence does not waive the right to a speedy trial, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 528, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2191, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972), but " [t]he defendant's assertion of his speedy trial right ... is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right." Id. at 531-32, 92 S. Ct. at 2192-93. The fact that Hanahan made no demand for a prompt hearing after his postponement was granted in January, 1980, makes it "difficult for [Hanahan] to prove that he was denied a speedy [hearing]." Id. at 532, 92 S. Ct. at 2192.
Finally, we can find no prejudice to Hanahan resulting from the delay here. The Barker Court identified three interests protected by the speedy trial right which we find helpful in deciding whether Hanahan was prejudiced by the delay. These three interests are: "(i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired." Id. at 532, 92 S. Ct. at 2192 (footnote omitted). Hanahan was not incarcerated for the great majority of this period, and as a convicted felon on parole, his level of anxiety cannot be said to be as high as that of an unconvicted defendant. Indeed, Hanahan has not argued that oppressive pretrial incarceration or anxiety and concern have in any way prejudiced his interests.
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972), guarantees parolees the "opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence" and "the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses." Id. at 489, 92 S. Ct. at 2604. Hanahan does not contend that he was unable to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. His argument is that the Commission's refusal to issue the subpoenas denied him the opportunity to present witnesses and documentary evidence.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 4214(a) (2) the Parole Commission has the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence. Pursuant to that section, the Commission has issued regulations that state:
28 C.F.R. Sec. 2.51(a) (2) (1981) (emphasis added). Hanahan does not challenge the constitutionality of the statute or the Commission's regulation. His argument is that the Commission acted improperly in light of that statute and regulation. We disagree.
Although Hanahan is a federal prisoner, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus correctly seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Hanahan is not attacking his sentence, Sec. 2255 "is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Zannino v. Arnold, 531 F.2d 687, 689 n. 5 (3d Cir. 1976)