Opinion ID: 335045
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Certainty of future disposition

Text: 32 The parolee also has a definite, personal interest in being relieved of uncertainty as to what his future will be. As noted above, the Supreme Court recognized in Smith v. Hooey 25 that the anxiety and depression resulting from a detainer based on a pending criminal indictment may have a severely corrosive effect on rehabilitation. 26 We have no reason to believe that the effects are any the less significant when the detainer is lodged because of a parole violation. 27 That the appellees have not challenged the Board's power to withhold the execution of a revocation decision until the completion of the intervening sentence, and to alter an adverse parole revocation decision on the basis of interim prison behavior, does not gainsay the increased certainty that results from a hearing and decision on the pending detainer. 33 In the first place, we note that the asserted power of the Board to withhold execution of a revocation decision has no effect on the certainty interest of parolee-prisoners as to whom the Board has made a final decision to withdraw the warrant. In those cases, only subsequent prison conduct constituting a parole violation would justify a later decision by the Board to revoke parole. Moreover, as to those parolee-prisoners who have received an adverse parole revocation decision, we note that consecutive sentences and the ability of the Parole Board to overturn a prior, adverse decision are aspects of prison life we have neither the desire nor the ability to affect. A prompt revocation hearing thus nevertheless serves an important certainty interest of the prisoner.