Opinion ID: 186598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Changes to Parole and Reparole Regulations for D.C.Code Offenders

Text: 9 In 1997, Congress transferred responsibility for the imprisonment of all felons convicted under the D.C.Code from the District of Columbia to the federal government. National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act or the Act), Pub.L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 712, 734-37 (codified at D.C. CODE §§ 24-101 et seq. (2001 & Supp.2005)). As part of the Revitalization Act, Congress transferred authority over any imprisoned felon who is eligible for parole or reparole under the [D.C.] Code from the D.C. Board of Parole to the U.S. Parole Commission. § 11231, 111 Stat. at 745. The U.S. Parole Commission was required to begin the process of assuming its new jurisdiction by August 5, 1998. Id. The Act provided that the D.C. Board of Parole would be abolished once the transfer of authority to the Commission was completed. Id. 10 Under the Act, the Commission is vested with exclusive authority to amend or supplement any regulation interpreting or implementing the parole laws of the District of Columbia with respect to felons, provided that the Commission adheres to [statutory] rulemaking procedures. Id. In 1998 and 2000, the Commission undertook two rounds of rulemaking which resulted in the regulations applied by the Commission at Fletcher's reparole hearing in 2000. 11 Prior to the Commission's adoption of new regulations, parole and reparole determinations for D.C.Code offenders were guided by the D.C. Board's regulations. See D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, §§ 100 et seq. (1987) (repealed Aug. 5, 2000). Under these regulations, a person whose parole was revoked based on one or more new felony charges or convictions was entitled to an initial reparole hearing within nine to twenty-four months depending on the number of years remaining on the maximum sentence. D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, § 104.8-104.9. The Board, however, reserved its discretion to order a parole reconsideration date it determine[d] to be appropriate. D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, § 104.11. 12 At D.C. Board reparole hearings, release decisions were based on the same criteria used in connection with parole determinations. D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, § 204.1. To determin[e] whether an incarcerated individual [would] be paroled or reparoled, the D.C. Board employed an analytic framework that relied on both pre and post-incarceration factors. Id. The Board would first consider the following pre-incarceration factors: prior convictions and adjudications, prior commitments of more than 30 days, age at commission of current offense, recent commitment-free period, status of prisoner at time of current offense, and history of heroin or opiate dependence. D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, § 204.4-204.16. The pre-incarceration factors were then weighed by a formula to determine the candidate's risk category, called a salient factor score. D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, § 204.17 & Appendix 2-1. The Board would then consider pre— and post-incarceration factors to determine whether the candidate should be reparoled. D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, § 204.18. Two post-incarceration factors in particular were important: institutional behavior and sustained achievement in the area of prison programs, industries, or work assignments while under confinement for the current offense. D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, § 204.18(h)-(i). These factors, along with a second set of pre-incarceration factors, were then integrated into a calculus to produce a point score which constrained the Board's discretion in making final reparole determinations. See D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, § 204.19 & Appendix 2-1. The regulations allowed for discretionary departures from the point score in unusual circumstances. D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, § 204.22. Finally, the regulations provided that, [i]n general, the Board shall not grant parole unless the prisoner has substantially observed the rules of the institution in which he or she is confined. D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, § 205.1. At rehearings, the Board would take the original total point score from the initial hearing and adjust that score according to the institutional record of the candidate since the last hearing pursuant to Appendix 2-2. D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 28, § 204.21. 13 The D.C. Board's regulations plainly evidence a rehabilitative focus in making parole and reparole determinations. Post-incarceration factors were formally integrated into release determinations. This is different from the current federal regulations' singular focus on pre-incarceration factors. See Cosgrove v. Thornburgh, 703 F.Supp. 995, 1003-04 (D.D.C.1988) (finding that the Board utilized both pre-incarceration and post-incarceration factors in making parole suitability determinations, whereas [t]he Commission uses only two pre-incarceration factors, thus de-emphasizing any rehabilitative results from incarceration). The U.S. Parole Commission recognized this difference when it undertook rulemaking in advance of taking over the D.C. Board's authority in 1998. 14 Acknowledging that the parole function for D.C.Code offenders rests on a premise somewhat different from that of the federal parole guidelines, the Commission passed its interim parole regulations, choosing to incorporate the rehabilitative factors of the D.C. Board's regulations. See Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the District of Columbia Code (Interim Parole Regulations), 63 Fed.Reg. 39,172, 39,174 (proposed July 21, 1998) (codified at 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.70-2.90 (1999)) (citing Cosgrove, 703 F.Supp. at 1004 n. 6); see 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.73, 2.80 (1999). No such modifications were made in the regulations governing decisions to grant reparole when the new offense for which parole was revoked was not a D.C.Code offense. Interim Parole Regulations, 63 Fed.Reg. at 39,175; see 28 C.F.R. § 2.87 (1999). In other words, the federal regulations for reparole apply when a D.C.Code offender's parole is revoked based on an offense that was not a D.C.Code offense. Id. The federal reparole regulations only consider offense and offender characteristics. See 28 C.F.R. § 2.20 (1999) (federal parole framework incorporated into reparole analysis by 28 C.F.R. § 2.21). The interim regulations went into effect on August 5, 1998. See Interim Parole Regulations, 63 Fed.Reg. at 39,175. 15 In 2000, the Commission's interim rules were partially modified and then promulgated as final rules. The final rules took effect on August 5, 2000. See Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the District of Columbia Code (Final Parole Regulations), 65 Fed.Reg. 45,885 (proposed July 26, 2000) (codified at 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.70-2.107 (2001)). The final rules specified the Commission's special reparoling procedures for prisoners serving a new, parolable D.C.Code sentence, but otherwise made no changes to its general presumption that reparole determinations would be based on the federal reparole regulations. Id. at 45,894; see 28 C.F.R. § 2.81 (2001). The final regulations apply to all prisoners and parolees . . . who are serving sentences under the District of Columbia Code for felony crimes committed prior to August 5, 2000. Final Parole Regulations, 65 Fed.Reg. at 45,887. 16 In 2001, the Commission undertook a final round of rulemaking in relation to its reparole provision for D.C.Code offenders. The new amendment clarified the Commission's authority in subsequent review hearings to make findings of fact regarding issues not resolved by the D.C. Board of Parole at an initial revocation hearing. See Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the District of Columbia Code (Reparole Amendment), 66 Fed.Reg. 37,136 (proposed July 17, 2001) (codified at 28 C.F.R. § 2.81 (2005)). This, in the Commission's view, enhanced its ability to properly determine suitability for reparole under the federal regulations and addressed situations where the Board had revoked parole based on administrative charges sufficient to warrant revocation and return to prison, but without reaching more serious criminal charges. Id. The amended reparole provisions were made fully retroactive to all reparole decisions of the Commission from August 5, 1998, forward, and shall apply to all reparole decisions made by the Commission in the future with respect to offenders whose paroles were revoked by the D.C. Board of Parole. Id. at 37,137.