Opinion ID: 2205235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constitutionality of 2002 Amendments to Chapter 908.

Text: A. Right of indigent alleged parole violators to court-appointed counsel. We first address the constitutional parameters of this issue. The district court stated the challenged statutes violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel under the United States Constitution and the comparable right to counsel found in article I, section 10 of the Iowa Constitution. See U.S. Const. amend. VI (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ... have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.); Iowa Const. art. I, § 10 (In all criminal prosecutions, and in cases involving the life, or liberty of an individual the accused shall have a right ... to have the assistance of counsel.). The same constitutional provisions are cited by the plaintiffs. Nonetheless, both the district court and the plaintiffs rely on case law discussing a parolee's rights, including the right to representation, as a component of due process: Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). See generally U.S. Const. amend. XIV (prohibiting states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law); Iowa Const. art. I, § 9 (no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law). Therefore, we limit our consideration of this issue to the requirements of the federal and state Due Process Clauses. Because the parties have articulated no basis for distinguishing these clauses for purposes of determining a parolee's right to counsel, our discussion of the federal due process claim applies equally to the claim made under the Iowa Constitution. See Maghee v. State, 639 N.W.2d 28, 30 (Iowa 2002) (refusing to distinguish due process right to counsel in disciplinary proceedings under Iowa Constitution from federal due process right to counsel); cf. In re Detention of Garren, 620 N.W.2d 275, 280 (Iowa 2000) (refusing to deviate from federal analysis in considering state constitutional claim because appellant ha[d] suggested no legal deficiency in the federal principles ..., nor ha[d] he offered an alternative test or guidelines). We turn now to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court addressing the due process rights of an alleged parole violator. In Morrissey, the Supreme Court held the Due Process Clause requires a two-step process before an individual's parole can be revoked. 408 U.S. at 485, 92 S.Ct. at 2602, 33 L.Ed.2d at 496-97. First, there must be some minimal inquiry in the nature of a preliminary hearing to decide whether probable cause exists that the arrested parolee has committed a violation of his conditions of parole. Id. at 485, 92 S.Ct. at 2602, 33 L.Ed.2d at 496. Should a finding of probable cause be made, a revocation hearing must then be held to determine whether the facts show that a violation occurred and that revocation of parole is warranted. Id. at 487, 92 S.Ct. at 2603, 33 L.Ed.2d at 497-98. The Court held the parolee must have an opportunity to be heard at both hearings. Id. at 487-88, 92 S.Ct. at 2603, 33 L.Ed.2d at 497-98. In Gagnon, the Supreme Court considered whether indigent parolees and probationers were entitled to the assistance of appointed counsel during proceedings instituted to revoke parole or probation. The Court noted the effectiveness of the protections guaranteed by Morrissey may in some circumstances depend on the use of skills which the probationer or parolee is unlikely to possess. Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 786, 93 S.Ct. at 1762, 36 L.Ed.2d at 664. Concluding states were not under a constitutional duty to provide counsel for indigents in all probation or parole revocation cases, the Court held a case-by-case determination must be made. Id. at 787, 93 S.Ct. at 1762, 36 L.Ed.2d at 664. The Court rejected the adoption of precise and detailed guidelines for when counsel was required, stating: The facts and circumstances in preliminary and final hearings are susceptible of almost infinite variation, and a considerable discretion must be allowed the responsible agency in making the decision. Presumptively, it may be said that counsel should be provided in cases where, after being informed of his right to request counsel, the probationer or parolee makes such a request, based on a timely and colorable claim (i) that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present. In passing on a request for the appointment of counsel, the responsible agency also should consider, especially in doubtful cases, whether the probationer appears to be capable of speaking effectively for himself. Id. at 790, 93 S.Ct. at 1764, 36 L.Ed.2d at 666 (emphasis added). From these cases, we conclude the federal constitution requires that alleged parole violators be informed of their right to request counsel. In addition, when the circumstances of a particular case meet the standard set forth in Gagnon, due process requires that counsel be appointed to represent indigent parolees. B. Assessment of 2002 amendments to chapter 908 under constitutional requirements of Due Process Clause. We think the board is correct when it argues the legislature intended the 2002 amendments to eliminate the blanket right to counsel previously granted parolees under Iowa law. We disagree, however, with its assertion that the amendment to section 908.4(2) can be interpreted as removing the statutory right to counsel, but leaving intact the limited constitutional right to counsel recognized in Gagnon. Amended section 908.4(2) states unequivocally that an alleged parole violator shall not have the right to appointed counsel. If applied as written, which the courts are obligated to do, the statute leaves no room for the appointment of counsel in any parole revocation proceeding. See generally Teggatz v. Ringleb, 610 N.W.2d 527, 530 (Iowa 2000) (holding if the terms of the statute are explicit, the plain meaning of the language will be applied [and] we will simply give effect to the statute as written (citation omitted)). Therefore, we agree with the district court that the amendment to section 908.4(2) violates the due process rights of indigent parolees who meet the test for appointment of counsel set forth in Gagnon. On the other hand, we reject the plaintiffs' contention that the statute is unconstitutional in all applications. The plaintiffs' underlying premise  that all indigent alleged parole violators have the right to appointed counsel  is simply wrong. The Supreme Court made it clear in Gagnon that not all parolees have a due process right to counsel. See Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 787, 93 S.Ct. at 1762, 36 L.Ed.2d at 664 (stating the Court of Appeals erred in accepting respondent's contention that the State is under a constitutional duty to provide counsel for indigents in all probation or parole revocation cases). Therefore, the legislature did not violate the constitution by eliminating a right to counsel for indigent parolees who do not meet the Gagnon criteria. See Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C., 684 N.W.2d 168, 174 (Iowa 2004) (holding statute may be enforced to the extent it operates constitutionally); accord Iowa Code § 4.12 (2003). In view of the fact that not all alleged violators have a right to court-appointed counsel, there is no constitutional infirmity in the amendment to section 908.2 eliminating the requirement that parolees be informed of their right to appointed counsel. We note, however, that all parolees should be advised at their initial appearance that they have a right to request counsel. Only then will a parolee be in a position to assert a right to counsel, so as to trigger an inquiry by the court into whether the circumstances show the parolee is in fact constitutionally entitled to representation.