Opinion ID: 336609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Three-Month Delay.

Text: 16 Alternatively, Creech contends that the three-month delay from the time when he was taken into federal custody (and so was entitled to a prompt hearing, even under pre-Cleveland law) until the revocation hearing was finally held was in itself so unreasonable as to deny due process. 17 The Supreme Court said in Morrissey v. Brewer, supra: 18 The revocation hearing must be tendered within a reasonable time after the parolee is taken into custody. A lapse of two months, as respondents suggest occurs in some cases, would not appear to be unreasonable. 19 408 U.S. at 488, 92 S.Ct. at 2603. 20 The appellant contends that the three-month delay here, in contrast to the two-month delay approved in Morrissey, was not a reasonable time. 21 We have never considered the extent to which a period exceeding the Morrissey two-month span might constitute a reasonable time. Some courts have suggested that the proper boundary line between reasonable and unreasonable delay in fact lies at the three-month mark. See United States ex rel. Hahn v. Revis, 520 F.2d 632, 638 n. 5 (7th Cir. 1975); Marchand v. Director, U. S. Probation Office, 421 F.2d 331, 335 n. 5 (1st Cir. 1970); but see United States ex rel. Carson v. Taylor, 403 F.Supp. 747 (S.D.N.Y.1975) (even a three-month delay, coupled with other circumstances, can be unreasonable.) And longer delays have generally been found to be unreasonable. United States ex rel. Burgess v. Lindsey, 395 F.Supp. 404, 411 (E.D.Pa.1975) (nine months); Gay v. U. S. Board of Parole, 394 F.Supp. 1374, 1378 (E.D.Va.1975) (thirteen months); Arnold v. U. S. Board of Parole, 390 F.Supp. 1177 (D.D.C.1975) (five months); Wells v. Wise, 390 F.Supp. 229 (C.D.Cal.1975) (two years); Fitzgerald v. Sigler, 372 F.Supp. 889, 898 (D.D.C.1974) (one and one-half years); Sutherland v. D. C. Board of Parole, 366 F.Supp. 270 (D.D.C.1973) (five months). 22 The determination of reasonableness must, to some degree, turn on the circumstance of each case. See Gay v. U. S. Board of Parole, supra, 394 F.Supp. at 1378. Here, the function to be performed by the revocation hearing was limited; Creech had been convicted of the offense which constituted the parole violation and had in fact admitted committing it. The role of the Parole Board was thus reduced to deciding whether the offense warranted revocation. As indicated, the delay did not hamper the Board's performance of this function. Moreover, the delay apparently resulted not from any bad faith on the part of the Board, but from the quirks of the schedule followed by the Board's members in visiting federal correctional institutions. 23 In the light of these circumstances, we conclude that the three-month delay in this case was not unreasonable. We do not mean to suggest, of course, that every three-month delay or every delay which results from administrative difficulties is reasonable. The Parole Board is duty bound to ensure, so far as possible, that its administrative schedule conforms to the demands of due process. Different circumstances might well require a different result. 24 We conclude, then, that neither the total thirteen-month delay, measured from the lodging of the detainer, nor the three-month delay, measured from execution of the warrant, denied due process. The denial of the habeas corpus petition is affirmed.