Opinion ID: 2045198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: claim of right to annual hearing

Text: Section 83-1,111 states, in pertinent part: (1) Every committed offender shall be interviewed and have his or her record reviewed by two or more members of the Board of Parole or a person designated by the board within sixty days before the expiration of his or her minimum term less any reductions. If, in the opinion of the reviewers, the review indicates the offender is reasonably likely to be granted parole, the Board of Parole shall schedule a public hearing before a majority of its members.... (2) The board shall render its decision regarding the committed offender's release on parole within a reasonable time after the hearing or review.... If the board shall deny parole, written notification listing the reasons for such denial and the recommendations for correcting deficiencies which cause the denial shall be given to the committed offender within thirty days following the hearing. .... (4) If the board defers the case for later reconsideration, the committed offender shall be afforded a parole hearing at least once a year until a release date is fixed. The board may order a reconsideration or a rehearing of the case at any time. (Emphasis supplied.) It is the annual public parole hearing set forth in § 83-1,111(4) to which Van Ackeren claims he is entitled. It is clear that following a parole hearing, the board has three options. The board may (1) deny parole, (2) defer reconsideration of the case to a later date, or (3) grant parole. See § 83-1,111; Rules and Regulations of the Nebraska Parole Board, title 270, ch. 4, § 011 (1989). If parole is denied, written notification listing the reasons for such denial and the recommendations for correcting deficiencies which cause the denial shall be given to the committed offender within thirty days following the hearing. § 83-1,111(2). Conversely, if the case is deferred for later reconsideration, the offender is entitled to an annual parole hearing under § 83-1,111(4). Pursuant to Nebraska statutes, the granting of parole to an inmate is a discretionary act of the board based upon a predictive judgment of what is best for the inmate and the community. The statutes provide a framework to guide the board in its decisions. Under the present statutory scheme quoted above, unless it is determined during a review that an inmate is a likely candidate for parole, a parole hearing is not scheduled. § 83-1,111(1). To do otherwise would waste valuable resources and create unrealistic expectations for inmates. If, after review, it is determined that an inmate is not yet a good risk for parole, he or she is provided with reasons for the decision and another review is scheduled. § 83-1,111(2). See, also, Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). In the instant case, the board's letter of June 22, 1995, clearly set forth that it was the decision to deny your parole due to opposition and ... the seriousness of the crime. (Emphasis supplied.) However, when advising Van Ackeren of the future board review in the same letter, the board stated: Your case has been deferred to a June, 1996 Board Review.... Van Ackeren contends that in the context of Nebraska's parole statutes, the terms deny and defer are synonymous. Van Ackeren claims that when the board chooses not to grant parole, it is necessarily deferring the offender's release. In support of this contention, Van Ackeren asserts that the statute governing the criteria for determining whether to grant or deny parole does not contain the word deny; it uses the word defer. That statute, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 83-1,114(1) (Reissue 1994), provides that [w]henever the Board of Parole considers the release of a committed offender who is eligible for release on parole, it shall order his release unless it is of the opinion that his release should be deferred because of certain statutory criteria, e.g., release would depreciate seriousness of crime or release would have adverse effect on institutional discipline, et cetera. (Emphasis supplied.) However, in construing a statute, a court must determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense. Village of Winside v. Jackson, 250 Neb. 851, 553 N.W.2d 476 (1996). In the absence of anything indicating to the contrary, statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning; when the words of a statute are plain, direct, and unambiguous, no interpretation is necessary or will be indulged in to ascertain their meaning. Seevers v. Potter, 248 Neb. 621, 537 N.W.2d 505 (1995). With that in mind, we note that the verb defer is used in a completely different context in § 83-1,114 than in § 83-1,111(4). In § 83-1,114, the verb defer is used in conjunction with the subject offender's release in a section that describes the conditions under which it is appropriate for the board to deny parole and, necessarily, defer an offender's release. Conversely, in § 83-1,111(4), the verb defer is used in the context of when an offender's case may be called up for reconsideration. In its plain and ordinary meaning, the verb defer means to delay or postpone. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged 591 (1993). The verb deny means to turn down or give a negative answer to. Id. at 603. When the board defers the case for later reconsideration, it delays making a determination regarding parole pending further consideration, and the board may order such reconsideration at any time. However, under such circumstances, § 83-1,111(4) affords an offender a public parole hearing at least once a year until a release date is fixed. A case is deferred for later reconsideration when an offender is a likely candidate for parole within a reasonable period of time. We conclude that the phrases deny parole and defers the case for later reconsideration are not used synonymously in the parole statutes. Thus, an offender is not entitled to an annual public parole hearing under the plain language of § 83-1,111(4) after parole has been denied. The plain language of the board's June 22 and July 21, 1995, letters clearly supports the district court's conclusion that the board denied parole to Van Ackeren. Accordingly, we determine that Van Ackeren is not entitled to an annual public parole hearing as a result of the board's denial of parole. However, our inquiry does not end here.