Opinion ID: 296671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: denial of local revocation hearing

Text: 6 Under the Parole Board Directive set forth in footnote 3, Heezen was entitled to a local revocation hearing once he requested it, in order to facilitate retention of counsel or the production of witnesses. Heezen alleges he was kept in Sioux Falls, South Dakota for a period of almost two months, but the record is unclear as to whether or not he actually did retain counsel and why no local revocation hearing was granted. 7 Assuming, however, that Heezen should have been given a local revocation hearing with or without counsel, the delay in granting the parole revocation hearing would not render the hearing a nullity. The granting of the hearing on August 3, 1970 (prior to the time this petition for habeas corpus was filed) ended the delay and made custody thereafter lawful. Cotner v. United States, 409 F.2d 853, 857 (10th Cir. 1969); Weaver v. Markley, 332 F.2d 34, 36 (7th Cir. 1964); United States ex rel. Buono v. Kenton, 287 F.2d 534, 536 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 846, 82 S.Ct. 75, 7 L.Ed.2d 44 (1961).