Opinion ID: 1984902
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Statutory Right to a Written Explanation

Text: The Court of Appeals determined that Ms. Glover did not have a statutory right to a written explanation of the parole board's decision. Anticipating that this Court might disagree with the Court of Appeals due process holding, Ms. Glover maintains, as she has throughout these proceedings, that Michigan parole statutes mandate that the parole board provide a petitioner a written explanation of its decision. We agree. The parole board's jurisdiction is governed by M.C.L. § 791.234; MSA 28.2304. As explained above, § 34(8) expressly creates judicial review rights with respect to all parole decisions, providing both parolable lifers and those inmates serving indeterminate sentences a right of appeal by leave to the circuit court from adverse decisions by the parole board. [18] Parole interviews are governed by M.C.L. § 791.235; MSA 28.2305. Section 35, which is entitled Release of prisoner, sets forth an inmate's rights during the interview process and details, among other things, the permissible considerations at the interview, the right to advance notice of the interview, and the right to representation at the interview. More specifically, § 35(12) provides: When the parole board makes a final determination not to release a prisoner, the prisoner shall be provided with a written explanation of the reason for denial and, if appropriate, specific recommendations for corrective action the prisoner may take to facilitate release. The Court of Appeals held that the written explanation provision in § 35(12) is applicable only to prisoners serving indeterminate sentences. We find nothing in § 35 remotely suggesting that parolable life prisoner interviews are excluded from the requirements detailed in subsection 12, and the parole board has not offered any compelling reasons why it should be so construed. [19] Moreover, in addition to protecting a petitioner's statutory right to a written explanation, the need for a written explanation providing reasons for a parole decision is necessary in order to facilitate judicial review as provided for in § 34(8). [20] Accordingly, we hold that individuals serving parolable life terms and denied parole are statutorily entitled to a sufficiently detailed written explanation for the board's decision and, where appropriate, specific recommendations for corrective action the prisoner may take to facilitate release. MCL 791.235(12); MSA 28.2305(12). [21] We conclude that the Court of Appeals remand in the instant case was well within its authority, although its cited justification for the remand was in error. Our holding today is narrow: Our decision is not based, as the Court of Appeals erroneously concluded, on a constitutional right to a written explanation; rather, it is simply an incident of the right to a written explanation expressly provided for in M.C.L. § 791.235(12); MSA 28.2305(12), and implicitly provided for in M.C.L. § 791.234(8); MSA 28.2304(8). Moreover, the parole board is not required to provide extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, nor do we insist upon legal opinions when it denies or grants a life prisoner parole. Rather, the board should simply indicate what it relied on in reaching its decision. In the instant case, the parole board stated that it was denying parole after considering Glover's adjustment, attitude and behavior. However, there was testimony that Glover had adjusted well, had a good attitude, and had engaged in much good behavior. Similarly, there was also evidence of a poor adjustment, an insincere attitude, and bad behavior. [22] If the record were one-sided, containing almost all negative information about the prisoner, the explanation provided Ms. Glover would likely be deemed adequate because such a record can only be reasonably understood in one way. However, here the record was not one-sided, and, in, order to carry out the Legislature's directive in §§ 35(12) and 34(8), we require that the board provide greater explanation for its decision.