Court Opinion

ID: 9727478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:39:18.665268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:38.691571
License: Public Domain

Liacos, C.J.
(dissenting). In identifying the procedural requirements of due process for probation revocation hearings, the United States Supreme Court has observed that “the decision to revoke probation typically involves two distinct components: (1) a retrospective factual question whether the probationer has violated a condition of probation; and (2) a discretionary determination by the sentencing authority whether violation of a condition warrants revocation of pro*296bation.” Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 611 (1985).1 The court today appears to overlook the second component. The court suggests that the only purpose that closing argument could have served was to clarify a potential misunderstanding by the judge as to the basis for revocation. If this were correct, the court’s refusal to consider the defendant’s due process challenge because of his “tactical choice not to press for findings and reasons,” ante at 295, would, in my view, suffice.2 This “tactical choice” however, has no bearing on the defendant’s principal argument (and the one to which he devotes the bulk of his brief), that is, that the judge’s refusal to hear him at the close of evidence denied him his opportunity to be heard, see Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 113 (1990), and prevented the judge from exercising informed discretion.3
A probationer’s right to present material relevant to the discretionary phase of a revocation proceeding is well established. The “probationer is entitled to an opportunity to show not only that he did not violate the conditions [of probation], *297but also that there was a justifiable excuse for any violation or that revocation is not the appropriate disposition.” Black v. Romano, supra at 612. “Moreover, where the factfinder has discretion to continue probation, the procedures required by [Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973)] and [Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)] assure the probationer an opportunity to present mitigating evidence and to argue that alternatives to imprisonment are appropriate.” Id. at 614. “It is not enough that a violation of probation condition has been admitted or established at a hearing. A further and equally important step is necessary to determine whether such a violation warrants revocation and, if so, what sentence shall be imposed.” United States v. Diaz-Burgos, 601 F.2d 983, 985 (9th Cir. 1979). “Although the probationer may not call witnesses with respect to the second stage of the hearing, he has the right to address the court and present it with mitigating circumstances” (emphasis supplied). United States v. Morin, 889 F.2d 328, 332 (1st Cir. 1989).
The defendant in this case clearly had something to say, through his counsel, at the conclusion of the evidence. After his request for argument had been turned down once (over his objection), counsel stated: “Mr. Marvin would like to be heard, your Honor, before you impose your sentence, before making a decision, your Honor.” The judge did not respond. I believe this was error. The opportunity to be heard on disposition is an essential aspect of the accommodation in probation revocation hearings of “the interests involved in a manner that satisfies procedural due process.” Black v. Romano, supra at 614. The defendant was denied this opportunity.
I cannot agree with the court’s conclusion that, “It is doubtful that defense counsel could have said anything to the judge that would have led to any orders different from those that were entered.” Ante at 295. This is not the point. Nor is there any basis in the record for this conclusion. But revocation of probation was certainly not the only possible decision, and it is not inconceivable that the defendant could have presented information that would have swayed the judge to a *298different result. See Morin, supra at 332. For the process to maintain its integrity, the requirements of due process must be respected. In this case, they were not. I dissent.

These procedural requirements include “ ‘(a) written notice of the claimed violations of [probation or] parole; (b) disclosure to the [probationer or] parolee of the evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a “neutral and detached” hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking [probation or] parole.’ Morrissey v. Brewer, [408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)].” Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973). See also Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 113 (1990).

I agree that there was sufficient evidence, presented through the testimony of the defendant’s wife, to support the judge’s conclusion that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation.

The defendant’s decision not to press for findings has no bearing on the question whether the judge’s refusal to hear the defendant prevented the judge from exercising informed discretion because, whatever else the findings may have revealed, we know for certain that they would not have considered information that the judge had never heard.
The transcript shows clearly that the judge refused to hear argument by counsel on disposition and also refused to hear the defendant.