Document: 471 U.S. 606 105 S.Ct. 2254 85 L.Ed.2d 636 Lee Roy BLACK, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources Dick D. Moore, Chairman, Board Probation Parole, Petitionersv.Nicholas J. ROMANO. No. 84-465. Argued March 18, 1985. Decided May 20, Rehearing Denied July 1, See 473 921, 3548. Syllabus Respondent, upon pleading guilty in a state court to controlled substance offenses, was put on probation given suspended prison sentences. Two months later, he arrested for subsequently charged with leaving the scene an automobile accident, felony. After hearing, judge who had sentenced respondent, finding that respondent violated his conditions by committing felony, revoked ordered execution previously imposed unsuccessfully seeking postconviction relief court, filed habeas corpus petition Federal District Court, alleging due process requirements revoking without considering alternatives incarceration. The Court agreed released from custody. Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment does not generally require sentencing indicate it has considered incarceration before probation. procedures revocation probation—written notice probationer claimed violations, disclosure evidence against him, opportunity be heard person present witnesses documentary evidence, neutral hearing body, written statement factfinder as relied reasons probation, right cross-examine adverse unless body finds good cause allowing confrontation, assistance counsel, Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 471, 92 2593, 33 484; Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 778, 93 1756, 36 656—do include express were rejected. specified adequately protect constitutionally unfair manner. Pp. 610-614. 2. required afforded this case, even though did explain record consideration rejection violate simply because offense accident unrelated which convicted or because, after proceeding, charges arising reduced misdemeanor reckless careless driving. 615-616. 735 F.2d 319, (CA 8 1984), reversed. John M. Morris, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., petitioners. Jordan B. Cherrick, St. Louis, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion Court. 1 In case we consider whether requires found felony shortly original sentences suspended. begin serving Nearly six years Eastern held been denied expressly imprisonment. granted writ unconditionally 567 F.Supp. 882 (1983). Eighth Circuit 319 (1984). We certiorari, 469 1033, 503, 83 395 (1984), now reverse. 2 * On November 15, 1976, Nicholas Romano pleaded Laclede County, State Missouri, two counts transferring selling substance. resulted Romano's attempt trade 26 pounds marihuana, harvested, refined, packaged, what thought opium. App. 27-28, 40. Parole completed presentence investigation, trial April 13, 1977. attorney urged order He argued offenses involved any victim, no previous convictions, that, except running stop sign, law arrest charges. Id., at 31-36. Both prosecutor opposed 33, 36-38. nonetheless concluded appropriate underlying involve person. 43. 3 concurrent 20 each count, sentences, placed 5 years. 42-43, 47. observed appeared "have uphill run probation," id., 43, report fact "past track [was] too good." Ibid. warned if violated, would revoke imprisoned under terms sentence. 41, 44. Only being accident. information issued 1977, violating Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 564.450, 564.460 (1959), replaced 577.010, 577.060 (1978), punishable up five years' alleged struck seriously injured pedestrian and, knowing such injury occurred, "unlawfully feloniously" left stopping reporting Record 50. 4 hearing. Several gave testimony indicating over front tavern then driven away. offered explanation involvement Instead, counsel challenged credibility witnesses, justify conditions, requested continue defendant's 99-102. Neither nor lawyers otherwise proposed 103. Although prepared memorandum findings, 107-110, October 12, amended reducing 52. pay $100 fine. 53. incarcerated following petition, 1982, respondent's agreed, circumstances "alternatives should have considered, record, [the judge] decided still send jail, why inappropriate." F.Supp., 886. Because more than paroled federal proper him custody Parole. 887. proceeding done so. F.2d, 322, 323. II 6 imposes procedural substantive limits conditional liberty created Bearden Georgia, 461 660, 666, n. 7, 103 2064, 2069, 76 221 types are implicated case. opinions only is revoked, properly characterized limitation, but also impose requirement its rejecting alternatives. These requirements, courts below held, follow 484 (1972), 656 (1973). disagree. Nothing these decisions explicitly rejected Moreover, although outline minimum safeguards process, neither decision purports restrict grounds parole. Georgia recognized automatic where indigent defendant unable fine restitution. occasion however, decide concerns fundamental fairness prohibit other context. A. 7 identifying typically involves distinct components: (1) retrospective factual question condition probation; (2) discretionary determination authority violation warrants Gagnon, supra, 784, S.Ct., 1760; cf. Morrissey, U.S., 479-480, 2599-2600 (parole revocation). Probationers obvious interest retaining their liberty, assuring proceedings based accurate findings appropriate, informed exercise discretion. 785, 1761. Our cases sought accommodate interests while avoiding imposition rigid threaten informal nature interfere discretion authority. outlined parole apply proceedings. 782, 1759. Thus final must preceded factfinding need composed judges lawyers. entitled violations him; evidence; body; 786, specifically confrontation. Finally, some circumstances. 790, 1763. One point relevant immediately evident review set forth detail Morrissey: do 9 those administrative decisionmaker. 475, 2597; 492-493, 2605-2606 (Douglas, J., dissenting part); Wis.Stat.Ann. § 57.03 (1957) (statute ). Thus, Court's discussion importance amount holding must, matter Where exists, parolee show there justifiable excuse disposition. 789, 1763; 488, 2603. This opportunities explicit explaining selected. 10 desirability possible imprisonment revoked. See, e.g., ABA Standards Criminal 18-7.3, Commentary (2d ed. 1980); National Advisory Commission Goals, Corrections, Standard 5.4, p. 158 Nonetheless, limited sanction represents means promoting State's punishment deterrence. predictive subjective nature, 787, 1762, guaranteed reviewing second-guess factfinder's sanction. Accordingly, our precedents preserve flexible, full panoply associated criminal trial. 787-790, 1762-1764; 489-490, 2604-2605. believe general elaborate course taken unduly burden significantly advancing probationer. Cf. Greenholtz Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 13-16, 99 2100, 2106-2108, 60 668 (1979) (discussing release interest). 11 already As another context Harris Rivera, 454 339, 344-345, 11, 102 460, 463-464, 70 530 (1981) (per curiam ), "when minimized risk unfairness, diminished justification requiring rulings." helps insure respect provides adequate basis determine rests permissible supported evidence. Douglas Buder, 412 430, 2199, 37 52 (1973) ) (revocation invalid evidentiary support violated). assure mitigating argue appropriate. That opportunity, combined reason upon, accommodates manner satisfies process. B 12 certain circumstances, prior restitution "the made all reasonable efforts . yet cannot so through fault own, fundamentally automatically alternative methods punishing available." 668-669, 2070, 2071 (footnote omitted). conclusion rest view compel Indeed, suggests absence requirement. 672, 2072. acknowledged sensitivity treatment indigents justice system penological State, "depriv[ing] freedom fine" "contrary Amendment." 673, 2073 13 today preclude Bearden. statute effect time declared "may discretion" commencement sentence response conditions. 549.101.1 (Supp.1965), repealed 559.036 (1978). But provided "[t]he may continuance prescribe." (Supp.1965). Under law, judge, obligated make independent conclusions apart recommendation officer. Moore Stamps, 507 S.W.2d 939, 948-949 (Mo.App.1974) (en banc). presume followed declaring, power either Townsend Sain, 372 293, 314-315, 745, 770 (1963). III 14 satisfied conformance concluded, agree, sufficient court's 321; 885. transcript necessary dispute factors propose 15 ground challenging action argues conviction arbitrary contrary argument lacks merit. relatively innocuous instead committed involving receiving assuredly bar merely new offense. Nor regard affected 16 Given disposition merits, address propriety affirmed Appeals. judgment 17 It ordered. 18 POWELL took part 19 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, concurring. I agree accompanied demonstration wanting made.1 several occasions explanations particular required,2 write separately my setting. 21 attempted systematic when contemporaneous decisions, steps decisionmaking affect protected property interests. stated "are exception rather rule." 344, 463, At same time, provided, public welfare benefits terminated,3 parole4 probation5 good-time credits away inmates,6 inmates transferred mental institutions.7 stages integral fair determinations merits. For example, hearings explanation.8 Similarly, inmate confront transfers institutions cause.9 22 view, theme unifying decision, step is, like questions, analyzed three-factor standard Mathews Eldridge, 424 96 893, 47 (1976). When contribute "fairness reliability" individual deprived property, 343, 907, form balance between government tilts individual. 335, 903.10 Whether contribution depends variety factors, including tribunal,11 extent protections accuracy proceedings,12 decided.13 23 Applying principles here, litany available choosing Most important, concluding warranted.14 will allow substantively valid, unfair, revocation.15 24 addition, bodies, they boards, familiar enough possibility call attention standards governing discretion.16 constitutional limitation rational violation; permissible. Part II. breadth attenuates value might play. sentencers go almost limitless options hearings, number them lengthy document. balance, then, nonincarceration revocation. 25 suggest Constitution allows violation. contrary, (1983), read it, logically undermines initial defendant. failure restitution, bona fide forms exist. If poor, tried pay, signifies nothing about continued rehabilitative prospects valid decision. Revocation said, "fundamentally unfair." 2073. dealt one restitution—Bearden can understood light bases First, wide latitude deciding best served imprisonment, fine, alternative. expresses met prove rehabilitate himself live according norms life community. recognizes once made, both reason. 484, 2601 (1972). To probationer, integrating into community, promised turning square corners retract promise legitimately about-face.17 irrational conclude conclude, tracing probationer's conduct, warranted. 27 define rules initially, change middle game.18 Wood 450 261, 286-287, 101 1097, 1110-1111, 67 220 (WHITE, dissenting). A therefore logical choose abandoned. 28 principle establishes limitations beyond unfair. stringent, important note existence. minor traffic violation, technical well rationally longer risk.19 early term cleanly years, 15-year term.20 No doubt stir biases "taken chance" officers feel personally fault, authorize revocations solely vindictive reflexive. stake, reflect "considered judgment" satisfy legitimate Williams Illinois, 399 235, 265, 90 2018, 2034, 586 (1970) (HARLAN, concurring result). 29 extent, rationality evaluated measures responding blameless could "served fully means." 2072.21 noted making payments extended, reduced, perform labor service lieu establish realizing committed, sanctions surely evaluating related 30 "touchstone protection government." Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 558, 94 2963, 2975, 41 935 (1974). Probationers, possessed standard, demanding revocation, outer boundaries decisions. 31 There here demonstrated unsuitability struck.22 drug initially sentenced, demonstrates driver, cover refuses accept responsibility actions. chosen option illogical risk. seriatim record. join opinion. Respondent specific situation proposes ante, ----. Ponte Real, 491, 508-513, 2192, 553 (1985) (MARSHALL, dissenting); 40, 2120, see Hewitt Helms, 459 479, 864, 875, 74 675 (1983) (STEVENS, Connecticut Bd. Pardons Dumschat, 452 458, 468, 2460, 2466, 69 Dorszynski United States, 424, 445, 3042, 3053, 855 (1974) judgment) (statutory interpretation). Goldberg Kelly, 397 254, 271, 1011, 1022, 287 (1970). 489, 2604, 563, 2978, Vitek Jones, 445 480, 100 1254, 63 552 (1980). 791, 1764. Vitek, 494-495, 1264-1265 (requiring "a finding, arbitrarily cause"). judicial elements whole reliable, enable fulfill role effectively. Wolff, 565, 2963 ("[T]he provision administrators, faced scrutiny officials public, perhaps courts, rights abridged, act fairly"); ---- dissenting) (written necessary, inter alia, facilitate meaningful review); Hewitt, 495, 883 ("A ."). 493, Greenholtz, 2120 Pardons, 472, 2468 ); Dorszynski, 457-459, 3059-3061 commanded give priority sentencing). incorporates laid out factfinders parole." 2604. Ponte, --- (same). supra. underlies probated condition, officer "all arrests" delay. cited driving fast, incident citation days. His reversed, prong defining occurrences constitute unforeseeable surprising interpretation special Bouie City Columbia, 378 347, 84 1697, 894 (1964). norm regularity governmental conduct informs numerous doctrines. States ex rel. Accardi Shaughnessy, 347 260, 499, 98 L.Ed. 681 (1954) (Government bound own regulations); 1262 (due " 'objective expectation, firmly fixed official Complex practice' "); 467, 2465 (BRENNAN, concurring) (liberty arise "statute, regulation, practice, contractual arrangement mutual understanding [that establish] particularized criteria guide decisionmakers"); Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assn. Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 29, 42, 2856, 2866, 77 443 (reasoned agency validly promulgated rule); Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. Wichita Trade, 800, 807-808, 2367, 2374-2375, 350 ("There least presumption [previously chosen] policies carried settled rule adhered to"). Prellwitz Berg, 578 190, 193, (CA7 1978) clause just proving breach supervision contemplated"); Reed, 573 1020, 1024 (CA8 ("The reflexive reaction accumulation offender"). Cottle Wainwright, 493 (CA5 1974) (describing 7-year incidents drunkenness occurring end term). "willful" sense constitutional. conditioned obligation obey local laws, citizens similar obligations. recognize minor, offenses. Such treated major probationer; remains true notwithstanding inclusion conformity laws. procedurally, defined Clause, law. Cleveland Education Loudermill, 470 532, 1487, 494 (1985). Statutes authorizing "for cause" deemed may, applied cases, principles. Va.Code 19.2-306 advance possibility. short list commands follow, willful refusal abide incapable complying general-obligation repeated flagrant. historical subject Sumner Mata, 455 591, 1303, 71 480 (1982).

Category: 3