Court Opinion

ID: 9705337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:02:49.692989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:10.028763
License: Public Domain

Taylor, J.
(concurring). I join the majority in affirming the remand to the parole board for a more *528meaningful written explanation1 and in reversing the Court of Appeals federal and state due process and Open Meetings Act holdings.
I agree with the result and reasoning of the majority opinion with the exception of its holding that Glover had a statutory right to a written explanation pursuant to MCL 791.235(12); MSA 28.2305(12). I do not find it necessary to reach this disputed issue, as I believe we should affirm the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals on the basis of MCL 791.234(8); MSA 28.2304(8),2 and MCR 7.104(D)(7). This court rule provides:
On timely motion by a party, or on the court’s own motion, the court may remand the matter to the parole board for an explanation of its decision.
The Legislature has implicitly chosen in MCL 791.234(8); MSA 28.2304(8) to give a reviewing court the ability to request a written explanation should it deem further explanation necessary. Furthermore, MCR 7.104(D)(7), which echoes in part the legislation, provides a procedure for a reviewing court to invoke.
Corrigan, J., concurred with Taylor, J.

 I agree with the majority’s explanation of why the explanation that was given by the parole board was inadequate. If the parole board had stated that it was denying parole because of Glover’s unsatisfactory adjustment, bad attitude, and poor behavior, as evidenced by the twenty-nine misconducts, and because of compelling testimony of the victims and relatives of the victims who opposed parole, I would have found the explanation adequate.

 This statute provides that a prisoner’s release on parole is discretionary with the parole board, but is also appealable to the circuit court.